Under the U.s Constitution and specifically, Article III, Supreme Court justices and all the federal judges should serve a life tenure if they demonstrate good behavior. As such, they are appointed for life and the only way they can lose their job is through impeachment, resignation, or when they retire. The law of unlimited terms for Court Justices was initially employed during the tenure of the Fourth Chief Justice in the U.S, John Marshall. The main intention behind the decision was to make the court and the entire judiciary non-political (Epstein et al., 2015). Somewhat, lifetime appointments have been successful in depoliticizing the court. Judges have generally been free of divided impact, to the disappointment of presidents and officials. The paper contains the pros and cons of lifetime appointment for Supreme Court justices and personal opinion on the issue.
One of the main benefits associated with lack of a term limit regarding the appointment is the protection from manipulation by members of the executive and the judiciary. The purpose of giving judges a seat on the bench for whatever is left of their lives or, all the more generally these days, until they choose to resign is to shield the country’s most noteworthy court from the sort of divided battling the Chase denunciation exemplified. The Supreme Court goes about as a check against the intensity of Congress and the president (Epstein et al., 2015). The lifetime arrangement is intended to guarantee that the judges are protected from political weight and that the court can fill in as a really free part of the government. Judges cannot be terminated if they settle on disagreeable choices, in principle enabling them to concentrate on the law as opposed to governmental issues. Judges may be named on the grounds that a president considers them to be a political or ideological partner, yet once they’re on the seat, they cannot be reviewed, regardless of whether their philosophy shifts (Graves, Howard & Corley, 2014). Some data, for example, proposes that numerous judges really float leftward as they age, most likely maddening the preservationist presidents that named them.
The absence of term limits is the best catalyst which can be contrived in any legislature, to anchor a consistent, upstanding and fair organization of the laws. The legal executive is in constant danger of being overwhelmed, awed, or impacted by its arrange branches, and nothing can contribute such a great amount to its solidness and autonomy, s permanency in office (Hall, 2014). Without lifetime professional stability, judges may feel committed to bow to the desires of the president, Congress, or the general population, instead of limiting their work entirely to inquiries of the Constitution. Besides, lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges is important as it eliminates conflicts of interest. In the event that Supreme Court Justices needed to serve a restricted term, it would impact the choices they make while on the court. The activity of the Supreme Court Justices is to translate the United States Constitution with however much reasonableness and as meager predisposition as could reasonably be expected. Preeminent Court Justices ought not to settle on choices so as to profit certain gatherings or interests and a shorter term would make this happen all the more habitually.
One of the main disadvantages associated with lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges is the limitation of exploring new ideas. Enabling a current political circumstance to characterize things for quite a long time to come is a bad idea. Presidents and legislators are chosen to run and impact the issues of the country inside their terms of office. By having lifetime arrangements to the Supreme (and different courts also), they rather have controlled a long ways past their terms (LaFrance, 2013). In the event that the electorate needs to change their administration, they should almost certainly do as such. With lifetime Court arrangements, they cannot, and political choices they later lament cannot be redressed for a considerable length of time.
In addition, life tenures can amplify political divisions. As life expectancies have expanded, judges are remaining on the seat longer and more. The initial five Supreme Court judges served for around nine years each; Scalia served for 30. Presidents and legislators know this and so do the judges themselves (LaFrance, 2013). They cannot control their life expectancies, yet they can control their deliberate retirement designs. In current occasions, government judges have utilized the mix of life residency, liberal retirement benefits, and long life expectancies to time their takeoffs for factional closes explicitly to withdraw under similarly invested presidents, and if at all conceivable, Senate dominant parts. For example, Scalia conceded in 2012 that he wanted to be supplanted by a similarly invested equity. At the season of his demise, he was attempting to hold up out Obama’s term before resigning, in the expectations that the following president would be a Republican (Hall, 2014). Besides, lifetime appointments make it conceivable to stack our court and make our constitution for all intents and purposes invalid and void. They can be influenced, threatened through their families and constrained in various different approaches to curve to the desire of evil men and no one can stop them.
I think that Supreme Court judges should not be appointed for life but instead, they should have term limits. If possible, chief justices should only serve the nation for a maximum of 20 years. The rationale behind the idea is that setting a term limit of, for instance, chief justice enables the state to explore new ideologies for a long time rather than having one person on the bench for decades, limiting the capacity of the judiciary. When one judge serves for a long time, it means that the country is subjected to his own interpretation of the law for the period that he or she will be in power. Moreover, Supreme Court judges should not be allowed to serve the entirety of their lives since with age, their health deteriorates and this may affect the decisions they make. For instance, if a chief justice is diagnosed with a mental issue and refuses to resign, the country can be in big trouble as the judge might not be able to make reasonable verdicts on a case. More so, I think that individuals below 50 years and those above 75 years should not be appointed as Chief Justices to the Supreme Court. Younger judges are less experience with the law while the older ones should pave way for new leadership.
Overall, lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Judges have multiple advantages and disadvantage. The main benefits of the practice is that it allows the court to be more independent and free from political manipulation. On the other hand, one of the major drawbacks attributed to lifetime tenure of the Supreme Court judges is that it limits the country from exploring new ideologies. In my view, term limits should be introduced for Supreme Court judges to enable the country to experience new leadership.
Epstein, L., Segal, J. A., Spaeth, H. J., & Walker, T. G. (2015). The Supreme Court compendium: Data, decisions, and developments. Cq Press.
Graves, S. E., Howard, R. M., & Corley, P. C. (2014). Judicial Independence: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Law & Policy, 36(1), 68-90.
Hall, M. G. (2014). Attacking Judges: How Campaign Advertising Influences State Supreme Court Elections. Stanford University Press.
LaFrance, A. (2013). Down With Lifetime Appointments.