Life Tenure Pros And Cons Essay

For over two decades, citizens of the United States of America have had strong feelings on the subject of congressional term limits- more specifically, the imposition of term limits on Supreme Court Justices as well as the restriction on judicial review. This controversial issue has been further publicized due to the more recent publication of Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. Levin, a talk show host, makes his term limit case in his book about several amendments that have been attempted in the past.

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

Judicial power is given to the Supreme Court. All nine federal judges are appointed by the President and serve "during good behavior," usually meaning for life. The judges cannot be removed from office except for criminal behavior or malfeasance. This makes them less vulnerable to political pressure and outside influence. The main feature of the independent role for the courts lies in their power to interpret the Constitution. They review the "constitutionality" of laws and executive orders. There are

The job of a supreme court justice is no easy task. They are given situations that others could not solve and must interpret the constitution in an unbiased way to see what the solution is. Interpreting the Constitution is especially difficult because its ratification was over 225 years ago. This means that the judges need to keep the constitution up to date, while also making sure not to lose the original purpose of each amendment. The constitution

Currently, the lifetime appointment is to hold the integrity of the power granted to the court, to protect judges from interference on decisions that effect the other branches of government. Keeping the Supreme Court separate from the other branches upholds the integrity of the courts constitutional opinion. Alexander Hamilton described it as “that independent spirit in the judges.” It is important to understand this under the original

At present, all federal judges have lifetime tenure; it has been this way since the drafting of the United States Constitution. Many contend that when the Constitution was drafted, the life expectancy then was less than half of what it is now in the 21st century. One of the major criterion for selection was the expectation that the candidate had a longer life expectancy. In other words, the candidate must “be young enough to serve for several decades.” By limiting the term of Supreme Court Justices to that of eighteen years, doing so would provide the potential for an increased sensibility to modern politics and life. If we were to continue to adhere to the verbiage of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, justices could continue to hold the position provided each exhibits good behavior. The question remains whether the pros would outweigh the cons of bringing new life and younger insight into the Court and would it tip the scales and force our legislators to apply term limits.

In conclusion, life terms for Supreme Court justices are beneficial to both the government and the people of the United States of America. Furthermore, changing the current system would be a hassle

Numerous Americans are unaware that by next year, the average age of Supreme Court justices will be 75. Unlike other countries, the United States’ Supreme Court does not enforce the idea of term limits. Once a judge is selected, when they leave the Supreme Court is up to their decision. Supreme Court justices may choose to retire early or die. However, as the judges are getting older and older, their health may intervene with the decisions that are being made. Issues regarding the health of the justices’ would not be a reoccurring annoyance if they were to be swapped out with younger and healthier judges; therefore, term limits are a good idea because there would be more diversity in the Supreme Court, mental and health issues would be reduced, and term limits would be long enough for judges to master the job.

If you think that this is an odd way to elect our judges, you are not alone. Even the former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson is a misguided way to elect our judges. (Horwitz). One major drawback for this is with the people who vote in the election, more often time than not do not have adequate information to give a well-informed vote. Most of the time, if people do not have a lot information about all the candidates on the ballot, then they nearly every time vote for the name they know which is the name running for re-election. For the voters who do this they might possibly be jeopardizing a better person qualified for the position, but they do not realize this because of the lack of information that they have access

The proposal of the twenty-eighth amendment is that no Supreme Court justice shall serve any more than 18 full years as a judge on the Supreme Court. “A term of 18 years is suggested most often because this length would allow presidents to appoint one member every two years (or two every term, which is approximately the historical average) but would not allow them, even if elected to two terms, to appoint a majority of the court.” The constitution does not clearly specify any limit to the number of Supreme Court justices nor the length of their terms. In this proposal for the 28th amendment, not only gives term limits, but also sets a mental competency exam for every fifth year and proposes vetting every second year. The founding fathers did

Throughout America, there has been many talks of the Supreme Court having term limits. This is an idea that has been talked about for a while now. But it is impossible because of the constitution. In article III it states that “The judges, both Supreme Court and interior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior”. So it is reasonable and can be changed into an 18 year proposal. So therefore, having term limits is a good idea because changing judges more often would result in more diversity, changing judges so much decreases health issues and the majority of the Americans favors term limits.

The Supreme Court views and attitudes can change over time. First the membership of the court changes when a justice retires or dies, and when the new justice is appointed to fill his position the new justice may not

An important consideration throughout the decision of having judiciary review was appointing the judges and deciding on the tenure in office. There was high concern about these judges being unelected and serving for life. People thought this would lead to them being more corrupt and less likely to base their decisions around what the people really want and need. There would not be a huge check on them, and they would never have to face re-election, so would not have to focus on keeping everyone happy with them in their position. However, Hamilton argued that being unelected and serving for life was beneficial for these judges. Serving for life provides them with the time and ability to become experts in what they do. If they had to be switched out every so often, we would have judges becoming experts just to be kicked out of their position and replaced with new, less informed judges who would have to start the process of becoming an expert all over again. In keeping them unelected, we avoid the influence of factions or other groups that could sway their, or the public’s, decisions on policies and who to elect into office. They also will not be affected by the comings and goings of political parties, and will place them above any current “trending” social issues. They do have to serve under good behavior, however, lest they be impeached. Other

Now, should Supreme Court Justices serve for life? No, they would begin to abuse their power sooner or later, and soon enough, they would just get tired of each other, then ideas

The judicial branch is one of the most powerful branches in the usa besides the legislative branch but the judicial branch has the ability to have the president confirm if they take or leave the Supreme Court Justices are chosen by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for the rest of their lives, as long as they practice “good behavior.”