Should The Supreme Court Be More Conservative

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.

Judge Neil Gorsuch is President Donald Trump's selection to fill the Supreme Court seat that was left open a year ago by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch graduated from Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, was a clerk for two Supreme Court justices and worked for a period of time at the Department of Justice. He attended Harvard Law with former President of the United States Barack Obama. Gorsuch has served on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Colorado since 2006.

The current Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government, and one that may shape the course of democracy for generations to come. The current Supreme Court is made up of nine justices. The four oldest justices are 79, 76, 75, and 73 years of age; Five of the nine justices are Conservative Republicans; Three of the justices are women: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan; One of the justices is African-American: Clarence Thomas; and Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic-American to serve on the Supreme Court. Eight of the justices come out of the appellate court system, and Elena Kagan was the solicitor general. The Court today is divided almost equally along partisan lines. On the corporate front, this is an extremist court, a court that has shifted extremely to the far right. In important cases decided 5-4, it is usually the Republican-chosen quintet that provides the victory. The Supreme Court is now a corporate court that by giving big business the advantage is shrinking access to justice for everyday citizens (Edwards, chapter 15 and Bill Moyer).

Instead of sticking to a strict constructivist approach, the court as a majority was willing to identify new rights in the constitution and agreed to hear cases on hotly debated social issues such as abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, and the death penalty, which conservatives thought should be decided by Congress and state

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

Conclusion: The Supreme court are divided politically and the court is more conservative than in the Warren/Burger era, ( since 1969 when Nixon became president there have been 16 appointments to the court 12 by Republican Presidents and 4 by Democrat Presidents),but while the court has developed a conservative view on election contributions and guns the main precedents of the Warren/ Burger era remain intact because being conservative is not the same as being a judicial

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.

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.

In today’s society I believe the Supreme Court Justices should have term limits. When a president appoints a judge to serve in the Supreme Court he generally picks a judge who is of the same opinion as him regarding the laws. For example, say the President picks a forty something year old Supreme Court Justice, he could be there for the next four decades. Having the same opinions of the law as he had when first appointed forty years ago. I do not think this is the way our countries’ laws should be ruled on. As society changes with every decade that passes, different issues arise at different times.

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

While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.

Examining the View that the Supreme Court is an Effective Protector of Civil Liberties In 1789, the founders of the Constitution set out the power of the Supreme Court in Article III section 2, and, arguably, in the Supremacy clause in Article 6. These clauses gave the Supreme Court the power to protect the Constitution, and by doing so, the power to protect civil liberties. The strength of the Supreme Court is essential in protecting civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also increased its power through court cases and through judicial revolutions.

In the book Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People, it sets out to identify how our government has changed and how these changes affect us and our laws. Pat Robertson wants the people to see how the Supreme Court is abusing power. Robertson shows how the federal judges are not only abusing their power but reaching beyond the power they are given. Thomas Jefferson once cautioned that, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” are “a very dangerous doctrine indeed” and “one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy” (Robertson, Courting disaster: How the supreme court is usurping the power of Congress and the people, 2004).

I do believe we should have a cap on how many terms a congressional member should be able to serve. Many congressional members believe they can do whatever they please, as long as they are able to get reelected. They know that they don't have a limit on terms, so they believe that as long as the can prove to the people they are still working hard at their job, then their is no big if they mess up along the way. They believe their is always a way to clean up their messes. Another reason there should be a cap on how many terms a congressional member is, because change is good. One of the best ways to fix a problem is by having new eyes take a look at it. New congressional member could find a better way to fix a problem, than the congressional

I am kind of stuck between appointing and electing the supreme justice. I think going more towards appointing than electing the supreme justice. When a president is elected they appoint the supreme justice who best agree with the views of how they look at stuff and politics. Why not keep everything and everyone on the same track. They are also appointed for life time, but if they are doing well and making good decisions why not keep them around. Even though that situation can be a good or bad on I think it is good. They are appointed for life right? So after the president has severed his term that will still be someone who is there to represent the views of how the see policies. I think if the people was to elect the SJ some people might just