Supreme Court Justices Should Have Term Limits

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.

When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to

Congressional terms have no limits. Controversy exists between those who think the terms should be limited and those who believe that terms should remain unlimited. The group that wants to limit the terms argues that the change will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. Those who oppose term limits believe that we would sacrifice both the stability and experience held by veteran politicians. They also point out that our election process allows the voter to limit terms, at their discretion. While experience and stability are important considerations, congressional terms should be limited to a maximum of two.

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.

The issue of limiting the number of terms that a Congressman or a Senator can seek re-election is a huge hot button issue today. It is also an issue that has a rather large conflict of interest stamp behind it. The reason for this is because our Senators and Congressman are in direct control of whether or not this issue is brought out of a committee and eligible to be sent to the States for potential ratification. There is a Constitutional way to get around the Senate and the House from bringing up this issue, but the problem is that we as a nation haven’t done it in over 200 years. What I am referring to is a state’s ability to call a Constitutional Convention to propose and ratify an Amendment.

The rest of Article III, Section I points to how judges can serve stating, “shall hold Offices during good behavior.” The good behavior portion of the statement is constitutionally recognized that judges may serve to the end of their life time or leave office voluntarily. Over time the meaning of life time has expanded and become the center of the controversy surrounding the extent of service. The framers of the constitution found life tenure appropriate for the justices of the Supreme Court as an expression of their importance to the government, but also that the loss of their cognitive ability was an imaginary farce.

Term limits have, however, been linked to more efficient legislatures across the country. With term limits, toeing the party line is less important because members of the legislature would not be seeking re-election. There would be less partisan politics and more cooperation in passing legislation that makes a positive impact on the lives of Americans.

This allows the executive branch to determine the makeup of the judiciary branch, and through it exercise power over the legislative branch. Because the men and women appointed to the Supreme Court remain there for life, with no public elections to possibly remove them, a president can affect politics through his choice of appointees for decades after his time in office has ended (Romance, July 29). But this, too, is limited by the Congress as the president’s judicial appointments are subject to the consent of the Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289).

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.

It is a good thing there are not term limits. Election time should be used to elemenate unwanted office members. If someone is doing a good job then there is not reason to changes thing. It is very hard to fix things that are not

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

Over the years there has also been many other different scholarly literatures written to discuss the issue of term-limits and whether or not they should be implemented for Supreme Court Justices. Each article gives suggested ideas about the issue and explain about multiple research studies that have analyzed different types of data to see if life tenure is effective or if it diminishes the value of the justice. One article written by Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren called Term Limits for Supreme Court: Life Tenure Reconsidered, expresses the belief that the American constitutional rule granting life tenure to Supreme Court Justices is fundamentally flawed and results in justices on the court for a longer period of time. In Nick Tomboulides’

     A very recent example of the politics involved in Supreme Court appointments was the 2001 election. It was assumed that the next president would probably be making three new appointment to the Supreme Court. Because of this fact, the president could use this

I don't think it will be easy to decide whether the federal judiciary is living up to its responsibilities. There are both advantages and disadvantages for the lifelong appointment of many judges. The positive side is they have much time to make decisions on the particular issue. The negative side is that there seems to be some room for them to rule the case imprecisely. In addition, it is difficult for the judges not to add their personal perspectives or emotion in the case when ruling. Sometimes, combining the previous rulings on the similar cases or personal perspectives with the law will help to analyze the cases.