What do you think of this amendment? Does your answer depend on which judge would be removed early from office?

Proposition 14 (H.J.R. No. 36) is the constitutional amendment permitting a justice or judge who reaches the mandatory retirement age (75) while in office to serve the remainder of the justice's or judge's current term.

Your question points up one of the quietly roiling questions about jurisprudence: do we really accept the prospect that the law should apply equally to all, or do we really, deep down, adhere to a "who's ox is being gored" philosophy? Turning to your specific question, we can all probably relate stories about judges who we would like to see ousted by whatever means are available. The same holds true of prosecutors and the whole array of public officials. Here, the difficult public policy issue, as I see it, involves the determination of a bright line. Is it a fair assumption that all judges have lost the mental acuity necessary to perform their duties when they reach 75? If so, the amendment is unjustified. If not, perhaps mandatory retirement should be geared toward some sort of performance-related criteria. But, then, who would have the stones to stand up and say a beloved judge (or a judge everyone is afraid of) just can't cut the mustard anymore?

Personally, I like the rule of 75. I also find it questionable for a judge to run for re-election, knowing he/she can't complete a term. Most of the time, that is done to make way for a judicial appointment.

I think "no" should be the presumptive vote on all constitutional amendments.
The rule of 75 seems like a fine idea. In re Lowery, 999 S.W.2d 639(Tex.Rev.Trib. 1998, pet. denied)("An independent and vigorous judiciary is essential as a bulwark to protect the rights of our citizens."); Werlein v. Calvert, 460 S.W.2d 398, 401-402 (Tex.1970) ("The reason for the amendment and its purpose are matters of common knowledge. Judges did not always retire when they should and some were reelected after the infirmities resulting from age made it impossible for them to render effective service.").

Speaking of the rule of 75, why are visiting judges who are over 75 appointed?

One reason "the rule of 75" should not apply to appointed judges is because someone who has responsibility and the ability to make an informed decision, picks the judge to handle a certain case, docket, etc. There are lots of 75+ year olds who are very capable judges. It would be a waste of talent to exclude appointed judges on the mechanical reason they are over 75.