Pros And Cons Of US Supreme Court Justices
An impending issue currently involves the terms of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. They are enjoying extended stays on the bench due to an increase in life expectancy. In fact, Justices are now serving an average of 26.1 years before retiring or death—twelve years longer than they did when the average span of a judge’s tenure was roughly fourteen years. Therefore, a proposal has been offered that addresses this concern. Under this proposal a judge would serve a term of ten years; after ten years the Justice would be eligible for re-appointment by the President upon approval of the Senate. This proposal has the benefit of limiting a Justice’s time on the bench, but that is outweighed by the proposal’s flaws. Therefore, a second proposal of
…show more content…
life tenure with limited bench sitting has been proffered which may offer a better solution. The United States Constitution calls for a Justice to serve for life with impeachment a threat only on the basis of a lapse in good behavior. Judges are to be judged solely on their merit not on the decisions or judgments they make. From 1789 to 1970 the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice was 14.9 years. Because of average life expectancy since 1970 that has jumped to 26.1. This allows for unchecked power on the bench because the Supreme Court is the highest and undisputed law of the land. There has also been an issue involving the lack of vacancies on the court.
At the end of the October 2004 term those current nine members had served together for eleven years, more than any other set of judges in U.S. history (Calabresi, Lindgren). Since there has been a lack of vacancies, few Presidents have been able to set the course of the courts by appointing like-minded judges; in years prior to 1970 judges were appointed roughly every two years. This undermines the efficiency of the democratic checks and balances. It also prevents the infusion of ideas that spring from the generational interest of the time. If every president was able to appoint a judge then it is highly probable there will be more cultural diversity on the court. There would be younger judges on the bench with a mindset more nearly reflective of the interests and issues of a newer generation. Another concern of the current situation is that the judges are serving much longer than their minds would normally allow, seeing as how some judges are serving well into their eighties. “The history of the Court is replete with repeated instances of Justices casting decisive votes or otherwise participating actively in the Court’s work when their colleagues and/or families had serious doubts about their mental capacities” (Garrow, David). And during the twentieth century the problem has multiplied. How are judges to base constitutional decisions rationally when their minds may not be so rational? Chief Justice Rehnquist continued to serve in office (for nineteen years) while regularly abusing the drug Placidyl. Justice William O. Douglas continued to serve on the court even after suffering from a stroke and many had questioned his capabilities. So to eradicate the life long tenure would surely eliminate the problem of judicial senility and possible
decrepitude. In hopes of eliminating these problems it has been proposed that the President appoint a Justice and the Senate confirm the candidate for a term of ten years, after which they may be eligible for re-approval. In approving this bill it is more likely that the current cultural or generational issues will be addressed and handled with more care. With fresh, modern minds the Justices may take a progressive stance and decide on a more liberal interpretation of the terms of the constitution—thus, it is hoped, overruling Justices who tend to view the Constitution with an older, more conservative point of view. Instead of seeing issues related to the Constitution as merely black or white, the shades of grey will be addressed with more care. A modern perspective will more than likely prevail under those circumstances. Another benefit of this proposal is that more Presidents will be able to appoint Justices, which eliminates the problem of vacancies and gives each President influence over the court. Perhaps every one will leave a Justice who might apply and defend his or her political views beyond the term of the Presidency. To achieve this end under the current system, Presidents have been appointing younger Justices to the bench “(T)he regular rotation might also reduce the incentive Presidents now have to appoint young justices who can extend their appointing President’s influence over the court for decades” (Mauro, Tony). Although the current proposal has many benefits, the cons appear to outweigh the pros. A simple argument is this: The court is the highest law of the land therefore they should not have to be reappointed. And what problems will arise from re-appointing Justices? It will turn the appointment of Supreme Court Justices into a far more politically influenced game. Conflicts relating to political party affiliations will assume greater import. For example, if a Republican President appoints a Justice with far-right leanings during his term and ten years later a liberal Democratic President is elected to office, who is to say that that fact alone will influence the re-appointment decision? As it stands today, a Justice is judged solely on his behavior not on the decisions made on the bench. But who might contend that would apply under the new proposal? Surely it will be disregarded. Another issue is simply that Justices are supposed to deem what is constitutional or not. They are not elected therefore they have the time to concentrate on the Constitution. If they had to concern themselves with getting re-appointed they might not concentrate purely on intelligent interpretation of the Constitution, but how their interpretations might influence their re-appointment. And the potential for corruption, such as taking bribes or ruling in favor of their appointed party, is manifested— thereby eliminating the checks and balances and turning the Supreme Court into another political arena. Life tenure protects the Supreme Court from party corruption; they have no reason to pick sides if they don’t want to. They are there for life. There is yet another proposal that seems to cover all the aforementioned issues and concerns. The proposal is to allow the Justices to sit for an average of eighteen year terms. This would permit each President to appoint a Justice once every two years. And since there are only nine Justices, the senior member would then be rotated to senior status. Senior Justices would retain life tenure by serving on other courts with senior status and even acting as tie-breakers for the Supreme Court itself (Mauro, Tony). This proposal is in fact the best solution. It allows each President to have some influence on the courts. Furthermore it would rotate out each Justice so the probability of infusing the court with some modernity or progressive liberalism is very high. It would restore the democratic check to its rightful status. In addition, the problem of longevity in the courts would be eliminated, for “longevity breeds arrogance and hubris” (Mauro, Tony). Not to mention it is better than the ten year plan because the possibility of corruption is slight. “Eighteen years of judicial office on the supreme court is long enough to guarantee judicial independence from the political branches” (Mauro, Tony).
The current system creates controversy; twenty-five years as a Justice is probably not what the founders had intended when they framed the Constitution. It gives them far too much authority for protracted periods of time and there is no way to remove them unless they act in a clearly illegal manner. But allowing re-appointment every ten years is also a bad idea. Although the ten-year proposal has some benefits that may amend current concerns it may ultimately create a corrupted Judicial Branch. The possibility of the court becoming corrupted is intolerable. All the checks and balances would be wiped out over time—that is why this is such a highly sensitive subject and must be handled with care. A proposal that allows for eighteen year terms with life tenure, thereby preventing potential corruption, but still engages the fresh minds of the time is the more logical solution. Indeed, moving to systems of eighteen year terms for Justices would restore this country to a norm that prevailed in the courts from 1789 to 1970 (Calabresi, Lindgren). It is highly probable that this was the original intent of the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution.
life tenure with limited bench sitting has been proffered which may offer a better solution. The United States Constitution calls for a Justice to serve for life with impeachment a threat only on the basis of a lapse in good behavior. Judges are to be judged solely on their merit not on the decisions or judgments they make. From 1789 to 1970 the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice was 14.9 years. Because of average life expectancy since 1970 that has jumped to 26.1. This allows for unchecked power on the bench because the Supreme Court is the highest and undisputed law of the land. There has also been an issue involving the lack of vacancies on the court.
At the end of the October 2004 term those current nine members had served together for eleven years, more than any other set of judges in U.S. history (Calabresi, Lindgren). Since there has been a lack of vacancies, few Presidents have been able to set the course of the courts by appointing like-minded judges; in years prior to 1970 judges were appointed roughly every two years. This undermines the efficiency of the democratic checks and balances. It also prevents the infusion of ideas that spring from the generational interest of the time. If every president was able to appoint a judge then it is highly probable there will be more cultural diversity on the court. There would be younger judges on the bench with a mindset more nearly reflective of the interests and issues of a newer generation. Another concern of the current situation is that the judges are serving much longer than their minds would normally allow, seeing as how some judges are serving well into their eighties. “The history of the Court is replete with repeated instances of Justices casting decisive votes or otherwise participating actively in the Court’s work when their colleagues and/or families had serious doubts about their mental capacities” (Garrow, David). And during the twentieth century the problem has multiplied. How are judges to base constitutional decisions rationally when their minds may not be so rational? Chief Justice Rehnquist continued to serve in office (for nineteen years) while regularly abusing the drug Placidyl. Justice William O. Douglas continued to serve on the court even after suffering from a stroke and many had questioned his capabilities. So to eradicate the life long tenure would surely eliminate the problem of judicial senility and possible
decrepitude. In hopes of eliminating these problems it has been proposed that the President appoint a Justice and the Senate confirm the candidate for a term of ten years, after which they may be eligible for re-approval. In approving this bill it is more likely that the current cultural or generational issues will be addressed and handled with more care. With fresh, modern minds the Justices may take a progressive stance and decide on a more liberal interpretation of the terms of the constitution—thus, it is hoped, overruling Justices who tend to view the Constitution with an older, more conservative point of view. Instead of seeing issues related to the Constitution as merely black or white, the shades of grey will be addressed with more care. A modern perspective will more than likely prevail under those circumstances. Another benefit of this proposal is that more Presidents will be able to appoint Justices, which eliminates the problem of vacancies and gives each President influence over the court. Perhaps every one will leave a Justice who might apply and defend his or her political views beyond the term of the Presidency. To achieve this end under the current system, Presidents have been appointing younger Justices to the bench “(T)he regular rotation might also reduce the incentive Presidents now have to appoint young justices who can extend their appointing President’s influence over the court for decades” (Mauro, Tony). Although the current proposal has many benefits, the cons appear to outweigh the pros. A simple argument is this: The court is the highest law of the land therefore they should not have to be reappointed. And what problems will arise from re-appointing Justices? It will turn the appointment of Supreme Court Justices into a far more politically influenced game. Conflicts relating to political party affiliations will assume greater import. For example, if a Republican President appoints a Justice with far-right leanings during his term and ten years later a liberal Democratic President is elected to office, who is to say that that fact alone will influence the re-appointment decision? As it stands today, a Justice is judged solely on his behavior not on the decisions made on the bench. But who might contend that would apply under the new proposal? Surely it will be disregarded. Another issue is simply that Justices are supposed to deem what is constitutional or not. They are not elected therefore they have the time to concentrate on the Constitution. If they had to concern themselves with getting re-appointed they might not concentrate purely on intelligent interpretation of the Constitution, but how their interpretations might influence their re-appointment. And the potential for corruption, such as taking bribes or ruling in favor of their appointed party, is manifested— thereby eliminating the checks and balances and turning the Supreme Court into another political arena. Life tenure protects the Supreme Court from party corruption; they have no reason to pick sides if they don’t want to. They are there for life. There is yet another proposal that seems to cover all the aforementioned issues and concerns. The proposal is to allow the Justices to sit for an average of eighteen year terms. This would permit each President to appoint a Justice once every two years. And since there are only nine Justices, the senior member would then be rotated to senior status. Senior Justices would retain life tenure by serving on other courts with senior status and even acting as tie-breakers for the Supreme Court itself (Mauro, Tony). This proposal is in fact the best solution. It allows each President to have some influence on the courts. Furthermore it would rotate out each Justice so the probability of infusing the court with some modernity or progressive liberalism is very high. It would restore the democratic check to its rightful status. In addition, the problem of longevity in the courts would be eliminated, for “longevity breeds arrogance and hubris” (Mauro, Tony). Not to mention it is better than the ten year plan because the possibility of corruption is slight. “Eighteen years of judicial office on the supreme court is long enough to guarantee judicial independence from the political branches” (Mauro, Tony).
The current system creates controversy; twenty-five years as a Justice is probably not what the founders had intended when they framed the Constitution. It gives them far too much authority for protracted periods of time and there is no way to remove them unless they act in a clearly illegal manner. But allowing re-appointment every ten years is also a bad idea. Although the ten-year proposal has some benefits that may amend current concerns it may ultimately create a corrupted Judicial Branch. The possibility of the court becoming corrupted is intolerable. All the checks and balances would be wiped out over time—that is why this is such a highly sensitive subject and must be handled with care. A proposal that allows for eighteen year terms with life tenure, thereby preventing potential corruption, but still engages the fresh minds of the time is the more logical solution. Indeed, moving to systems of eighteen year terms for Justices would restore this country to a norm that prevailed in the courts from 1789 to 1970 (Calabresi, Lindgren). It is highly probable that this was the original intent of the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution.