Why Do Judges Have Term Limits Essay

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.

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.

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

A term limit is made prevents government officials from serving for more than a specified number of terms. The

George Washington, while considered to be the founder of term-limits, actually opposed them entirely. In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington said, “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who…shall be deemed capable of serving the public,” (Washington Post 2013). Washington didn’t step down from the presidency to encourage

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

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 United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has 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.

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.

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

Even amongst the highest levels of the legal profession – the judiciary- there is a need for diversity amongst the judges. It is stated in the CRA 2005 that the choice of judges for the Supreme Court “must solely be based on merit”. Nonetheless, it is also stated that “the commission… must have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection.” This is not reflected in the Supreme Court today as there is only one female judge - Lady Hale – and there are also no Supreme Court Judges from any of the BME backgrounds.

Broad law-making power would remove judicial independence. Judges would become influenced by Parliament, and the political system if they had a larger role in law-making. There would be a reduced amount of protection from the authority of Parliament. The apolitical nature of the judiciary would be challenged if they had a greater role in law-making. Judges political identities would increase, with decisions pushing specific agendas. This would be unconstitutional. The separation of powers doctrine would be threatened, as the roles of the legislature and the judiciary would overlap. Judges would have a comparable law-making ability to the legislature. This would lead to a greater risk of the abuse of power, and an undemocratic society.