Should Supreme Court Serve For Life Essay

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.

President Obama publicly disagreed with the decision but could not change it. The President decides on nominations who are then put under scrutiny while he receives the ‘advise and consent’ of the Senate judiciary committee. There is therefore a small democratic link however it is very weak. Once a Justice is appointed they cannot be removed and are independent of the other political bodies this can be evidenced by Eisenhower’s appointments, a Republican conservative who appointed 2 liberal justices, something he regretted so much so that when asked if there were any regrets after his time in office he replied “I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court”. As stated before the judiciary is independent and once Supreme Justices are appointed they cannot be fired or dismissed this leaves a huge deficit of accountability, a key factor of democracy.

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

In our American government nearly all of our officials titles have limits on them. Regulating the tenure that a single person is allowed to serve. One of our arguably most important positions in the American government, the supreme court justice does in fact not have a term limit. Many people question why they do not have term limits and in fact in the article "Why it’s time to get serious about Supreme Court term limits" they say "Only 17 percent said they supported life tenure. 66 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans supported the proposal - a strong, and rare, show of bipartisanship." With their study it shows that majority of people think it's a good idea.

Under the current Constitution, there are a few problems I want to solve. The appointment times of new Supreme Court justices are unpredictable and rare, because justices can serve as long as they are on “good behavior”. We never know when we will next see the appointment of a new justice because we do not know when a current justice will leave the Court. This unpredictability and rarity leads to two different issues. First, the appointment process becomes more political. An example of this is when Senate refused to confirm Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, and instead waited out almost a year for a new president to be elected and a different judge to be nominated. An elongated vacancy hinders the ability of the Supreme Court to perform its role, as seen by the fact that the Court only took 3 cases during that year as

When the founding fathers proposed the judiciary branch, they wanted it to not only handle disputes but to play a key role in the system of checks and balances. They didn’t explicitly layout a system of judicial review. Judicial review came about through the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which had the impact of making the Supreme Court a major law making body and not just a judicial agency. With this additional power given to the Supreme many individuals feel that over the past few centuries, the power of the Supreme Court has become too great and that 18-year term limits should be placed upon the Supreme Court justices. However, I disagree with the idea of term-limits. Term limits for Supreme Court justices should not be put into place

The attitudinal model states that Supreme Court justices make their determinations exclusively based on their own beliefs; thus the term "attitudinal" which means based on their own attitude toward a specific issue. (video) The strengths and weaknesses of the attitudinal model depends on where the various justices lie on the conservative-liberal spectrum and if it coincides with your beliefs. If you are conservative, then it is a strength when justices vote following conservative values and a weakness if justices vote along liberal lines and vice-versa, again depending on your preferences. Supreme Court justices serve for life and there has never been a case when a justice has been impeached, so applying their own beliefs to their decision making is very likely done without consequences, which is also a weakness of the attitudinal model. (video) It is an extreme weakness to have justices who serve and believe that their own ideology prevails over the actual

When judges are appointed to the federal judiciary they must take into account the atmosphere they will be entering into (the judicial climate a judge enters). These new appointees will enter into their position where they must interact with people who have been there longer than they have. By the time these new judges enter the federal judiciary there is already an existing composition and atmosphere. They enter into the decisions already made, in which they must uphold the precedents made and constitutionality of cases or, if in the trial and appellate courts, the result may lead to the higher court overturning their decisions. When decisions are constantly being overturned it can result in a lack of legitimacy of the judge and could eventually result in impeachment, recall vote, etc.

The Supreme Court is a critical part of our government. As such, we need the very best and most capable judges to serve on the bench of the court. Unfortunately, there have been several cases where judges have stayed on the court way to long. For example, “Philip Cattan fell asleep during a rape trial, and was allowed to remain a judge”. (Daily Mail, 2016). Therefore, term limits are a good idea because it would reduce the impact of judges medical issues on the court, changing judges more often would result in judges who are more in touch with society, and the majority of people in the United States support the idea of the term limits for the Supreme Court.

Term limits can affect political feuding in a positive way minimizing political arguments. Since the Supreme Court job is a lifetime job so when it comes to appointing a new judge the discussions go over the roof debating on whether he or she should be a republican or democrat. Term limits will not only stable power between the political parties but also allow new perspectives. In fact, “in 2015 two-thirds of Americans supported 10 year

Justices are appointed by the President and serve for life or until they choose to retire. In the case of a Chief Justice passing away or retiring, the President appoints a new Chief Justice. When the Supreme Court was original made in 1790 there were originally six Justice’s, one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The number of Justices has change throughout the years, ranging between six to ten Justices. In 1807 the number of

Judges are named forever and Article III, area 1, of the Constitution further gives that "[t]he Judges, both of the Supreme and mediocre Courts, might hold their Offices amid great conduct, and should, at expressed times, get for their administrations, a pay, which should not be lessened amid their duration in office." Taken from http://www.pacourts.us/learn/historyA Justice might, if so sought, resign at 70 years old subsequent to serving for a long time as a Federal judge or at age 65 following 15 years of an administration. This is the reason Justices rarely retire.

Also life term leads to less frequent leadership change, meaning that since Justices serve a life term change would likely happen after the death or retirement of the Justice. Term limits ensures the bringing in of new blood in the courts and this increases the rotation of justices thereby broaden the pool of potential nominees. New nominees bring in new

Having public opinion on its’ side, helps with enforcement of the Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court’s power is limited to making decisions and not in enforcing these decisions. They must rely on other branches of government and even lower levels of government such as state and local to enforce their decisions (Botsch). Normally, the Supreme Court is reluctant to get involved in political matters especially when public opinion is against them. However, in the last example listed above, one can see that the moderate side of the court tends to support big business even when public opinion does not.

Many people argue about whether or not Supreme Court Justices should be able to serve for life or have an age restriction on when they must retire. Currently, Supreme Court Justices have the ability to serve for life unless they resign or are impeached. Justices have served for life ever since the framers decided it when writing the Constitution. Because of the integrity, their dedication, and experience, Supreme Court Justices should have the ability to serve for life. These justices should have the ability to serve for life because they know what the job includes before accepting the position.