Supreme Court Term System Case Study

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.

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’

While our nation was founded on the principle of a balance of power, coming from the ideology of Baron de Montesquieu, the Judicial, unlike any other branch, does not have regular elections for its positions or terms like Presidency or Congress. Justices are nominated and confirmed for seats on the Supreme Court for life and have the option to leave whenever they choose to, not when they are voted out of office. An example of this is Justice Stanley F. Reed. He worked with the panels for the D.C. Circuit and

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

As it is explained in the Constitution, the ability of Court Justices to hold office “during good Behavior” and does not provide for the necessity that a Court Justice resign after a certain age or period of service”(U.S Constitution). When James Madison wrote the U.S Constitution, it did not specify the term limit of the judges, which makes the judges more fair and allows them to rule the cases without worrying about being reelected. Moreover, another reason that the Supreme Court judges judges are appointed for life is to assure the integrity of the power granted to Court Justices and protect them against unwarranted interference from either the legislative or executive branch”(Constitution 1). Since Congress does not have the power to interfere with the power of the judicial branch, they are able to rule in a fair and just manner. So this way it is guaranteed that the people will receive the best trial and obtain their desired wishes.

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

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.

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

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.

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

In a recent event, one of Supreme Court Justices has passed away. Theoretically, the President would have to appoint a new justice and also have that nomination to be confirmed by the Senate. But recently Senate has declined to support Barack Obama approval on the new member of Justice. Now, statistically, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans by fifty four to forty six. This causes the Democrats to lose the majority in the Senate. Due to this Republicans are seeing this as a loophole to stop the nominations of a new Justice nominated in favor of a Democratic President. Instead of Congress members letting go of the rivalry in the two sets of parties, Republicans or known as the Senate has decided that it would be a good idea to leave only 8 Justices in the

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.

The Supreme Court justices have been appointed by the president of the United States and have held life tenures granted to them, but this needs to change to ensure that the wellbeing of the

The Supreme Court has nine judges, which serve. These judges assess cases. These Justices hold their terms for life, "during good behavior" under Article III. The current Supreme Court Justices are Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975. Ronald Regan appointed Justice Sandra Day O'Conner to her term in 1981. Justice Antonia Scalia was appointed by Ronald Regan in 1986. Another Justice appointed by Ronald Regan is Anthony Kennedy in 1988. George Bush appointed Justice David Souter in 1990. Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush in 1991. Bill Clinton appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. Bill Clinton also appointed Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is Chief Justice William Rehnquist who was appointed Justice by President Richard Nixon in 1972 and earned his appointment to being Chief Justice by Ronald Regan in 1986.

There is a proverb that says, “Don’t fix what isn’t broke.” This statement is very likely as true as it is old. But what happens when something is dysfunctional? The ‘something’ in question is the coveted seat of the Supreme Court Justice, which many should know is not a position that is obtained from the amazingly widespread routine of elections. Not to let out any spoilers if you were not aware, the President is the nominator of Justices to these associate positions and the Senate is the deciding group with a majority vote. I agree with the practice, currently instated because of our Constitution, but can see how some people worry over its effectiveness. There has been one case where a standing Supreme Court Justice has been impeached.