Justice Scalia Case Analysis

With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February of 2016, the Supreme Court was shoved to the forefront of the political system. The deep division between the democratic president and the republican congress led to the Justice Scalia’s seat remaining empty, to the satisfaction of some and the consternation of others. The inability of the system to fill the vacant seat is further evidence of what many view as the debilitating polarization of the government. Much of the conflict regarding Supreme Court appointments has to do with life tenure for justices: until 1970, the average tenure of a justice was 14.9 years; since 1970, the average tenure skyrocketed to 26.1 years- a more than ten year increase. Because a Supreme Court Justice has a
As of the writing of this document, Justice Scalia’s seat has been empty for about nine months. The justification for this delay was that since it was President Obama’s fourth year, the confirmation ought to be delayed until the new president was elected: Kelly Ayotte, a senator from New Hampshire, said “I continue to believe the Senate should not move forward with the confirmation process until the people have spoken by electing a new president”. Some consider this a reasonable commitment to answering to the people, while others consider this an obstructionist crock, however there is no question that term limits would eliminate the political value in leaving supreme court seats open. It would be understood and accepted that presidents get two appointments per term, and the Senate would have no justification for refusing to hold hearings. In this way, term limits would protect the Court from the Legislative-Executive politics that force the justices to serve with only 8 members, instead of
For example, President Jimmy Carter nominated zero justices to the Supreme Court, whereas President Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominated nine. Putting aside the matter of strategic retirement (see above), the number of justices a president gets to nominate is basically a matter of chance, as is the effect each president will have on the court. As Karol states, “At issue is not fairness to individual presidents but rather ensuring that the court does not overrepresent one president or party because of the randomness of mortality and retirement decisions” (Karol 35). By ensuring that each president gets the same number of presidential appointments, term limits allow the people a voice in the makeup of the nation’s least accountable body. Through the election of the president, the populace would not only choose the president, but also the kind of justice they would want on the court (based on what kind of nominee a candidate would be likely to choose). Consequently, a court more answerable to the people would be less swayed by conflict within congress and the