I am a reader of the Becker-Posner blogsite. Though a lot of what they talk about is of interest to me, I'm constantly astounded with the depth of their considerations with their conclusions. Today, Posner posted comments regarding judicial term limits, and Becker posted his in favor of them earlier. The gist of it was that Becker favors term limits for the judiciary, and Posner considers the current standard of "in good standing" to be undemocratic at its soul.
My current position is that I think it's beneficial to not have the term limits for the judiciary because it bars them from political pressures to get reappointed or re-elected. However, I can see that this can be accomplished in a different manner.
If a judge is appointed for life, and they know that short of impeachment they're not losing their job, it could breed inefficiency and a lackadaisical attitude on their part. Imposing a term limit of say 5 years eliminates that threat of slacking, but it runs the new threat of job-hunting, as Posner suggested, or, if they are allowed reappointment, it could run the risk of kowtowing.
If, however, you appointed the Judges to a single term of 10-20 years, the political pressure is (theoretically) alleviated, and since they'd ultimately have to find something else to do, if nothing more than lecture, they'd have to ensure they did their job enthusiastically.
Though I can see the benefit of the case, I don't know if I can totally wrap my head around it. We'll see how I feel after law school, and after I've been practicing a while.