Term Limits Analysis

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

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.

Many people who are elected are very well known names, so often reelects. Having term limits gives people a chance to get their name out there and run for positions. According to the site Our Generation, “There is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.” People are not very likely to vote for someone they have never heard of. That’s why people start out in their states, become politicians and work their way up. If it wasn’t for term limits, then there would be not room for them to advance. The term limits make politicians think about and worker harder toward their objectives. No one is going to get anything done if they have all the time in the world. Politicians have limited time in each position to prove themselves if they are ever to be reelected or move up the line of

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.

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

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.

There is a lot of argument regarding the issue of term limits, in which a service in elective office after a fixed and specified number of terms is directed. The idea of issuing term limits is not only a damage to the Constitution, but also a quick fix to a problem that may just end up affecting severe outcomes down the line. Authorizing term limits to deal with the corruption among congressmen is not a normal solution. If some parts of the system were dishonest, term limits would basically get cleared of everyone, those upsetting Congress both negatively and positively. At that juncture new representatives are selected and they become corrupt and are soon thrown out, and this cycle of continuing corruption will go on and on for a while, and would not be fixed. Likewise, the fact that term limit gives a

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.

When the Supreme Court was created by the founders, they did not specify term limits. In article III section I, it states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” In this excerpt of the Constitution the wording is very vague. The founders did not anticipate the judges not wanting to step down for the benefit of the country. This 28th amendment sets clear term limits for the Supreme Court Justices. Since the inception of the Supreme Court, most Justices have tried their

American people are use to being able to vote for a new president especially if the one that is in office is not doing a good job for the people. I like the way it is because when we limit it to only two terms it helps bring in qualified people with new views and that may have a different outlook on how things are being handled in the White House. Conflict will arise either way you choose to go and personally I think that if it isn’t broke why try to fix it. We as voters enjoy exercising our right to vote, but I strongly feel that the government has the right to put who it wants in office no matter what. So, presidents having limits on how long they can run is our savior because sometimes you can vote and vote and your voice remain unheard.

Having term limits would be good because there would be a definite change every so many years. If the people did not like what was going on then they would know that as soon as the term was over they could be replaced.

Term limits would also decrease experience and would not help anyone gain more knowledge for their job. In essence, limits are not needed for United States Senators and Representatives. All Americans eighteen and older have a right to vote. If people do not like their current U.S. Senator or Representative that is running in an election for another term, they simply do not have to vote for him or her. When an official is not making the best decisions and/or choices, it is up to the people to make a

Thirty year tenures, which exist today, because of longer life expectancies, were not what the framers had in mind. For example, the first nine Justices served about nine years in contrast the the most recent nine Justices who have served for about twenty-seven years. This is over three times as long as the executive branch holds power and disrupts the balance of our system of government. Term limits will add checks and balances back to SCOTUS.