The Constitution allows Supreme Court Justices to serve for life in office "under good behavior." The Founders involved both the Executive and Legislative Branches in the choosing of the justices as a mean of a check on their capability and potential to serve. It was originally questionable about what "good behavior" meant, but it is now largely defined as anything but an impeachable offense. Despite this constitutional provision, only 1 state (Rhode Island) has placed it in their own state constitution. From 1789 to 1970, justices stayed on the Supreme Court for an average of 15 years, retiring at the average age of 68; during this time, vacancies arose about every two years. From 1970 to today, justices have been serving for an average of 25 years and retiring at an average age of 78; now, vacancies typically arise only every 3+ years.
Both liberal and conservative groups have expressed dismay at different points in history at decisions made by the Supreme Court and the perceived "eliteness" of life tenure. This anger is often manifested in calls for more checks on the Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson has questioned the power of the Court by bringing forth the notion that judicial review undermines the democratic process. FDR felt that the legislative process was threatened by the Court and proposed what became known as the "Court packing scheme."
However, on the other side, the ability to serve for life as well as to not be elected frees the Justices from common political pressures, such as deciding cases to please the public. Some believe that setting limits on time served will cause too much frequent change in the Court bringing an instability to precedent and legal interpretations.
What is the best means of ensuring that the Supreme Court remains accountable for their decisions?
12 comments:
I think Supreme Court Justice's terms are completely justified. It is important for Justices to have space to rule on issues based only on the constitutionality of the decision, rather than having to rule in a way that will ensure job security. If Justices' terms were limited to a set number of years than they would decide cases in favor of the party in power to ensure they would be re-appointed next term. The issue of judicial review would become a party concern, making it much less objective.
Supreme Court Justices are already held "accountable" for their decisions. They have to abide by their decisions as much as the average U.S. citizen and face impeachment if they violate national law. They have been appointed because U.S. representatives, elected by this nation's citizens, trust them to be impartial and professional. We give them the right, as the judicial branch, to rule on cases and there are nine justices to ensure no one person can make an outrageous ruling, ensuring this essential branch of government is composed of competent, law-abiding Justices chosen by the Executive and Legislative branch. Once in place, the nation, and its politicians, need to trust these lawyers to do their job, only interfering if the Justice violates the law.
I don't feel our nation needs to implement anymore checks and balances on the judicial branch than are already provided for through legislative approval of appointments and power of impeachment if legal statutes are violated. Limiting the judicial branch's power anymore would not make Justices more accountable, it would make the criminal system more political, and less objective. Imposing more limiting statutes on the Supreme Court would be fixing something that is not broken and is, I feel, completely unnecessary.
I completely agree with Abbey. One of the unqiue aspects of the Supreme Court is the fact that it has very little to do with the politics of Washington. The Supreme Court's sole job is to determine whether or not acts of Congress and the presidency are constitutional. Its job is not to rule on decisions based on what their parties say. Therefore, the addition of new restrictions on the power of the Supreme Court would only hinder the Justices' ability to make impartial decisions.
In addition, the lifetime terms of Justices also allows the Supreme Court to stand out among the other branches. Typically, in politics, it is helpful to have set terms for elected officials to hold them accountable to their promises and actions. However, since the Justices of the Court are not elected based on their promises, it is not necessary to hold them to set terms. The only way we should hold Justices accountable is for them to accurately and thoroughly interpret our Constitution, our basis of government, so that our elected officials never try to screw us.
Serving on the Supreme Court is a significant honor, and, as a citizen, I want to know that I my president has appointed qualified, intelligent, and impartial judges who will use their experience and common sense to rule on decisions that will always establish the sovereignty of the United States. I want to know that my president has not appointed some "average joe" from the street, but someone who truly cares about the U.S. and is willing to dedicate their life to service for his or her country.
I disagree with Abby and Morgan. I think that the term should be limited in some way, even if it would be ten or fifteen years. By limiting the number of years a justice could serve, no certain party could control it. I understand that each of the justices have their own view and ways on issues, but their beliefs can sort them into different political parties, causing a bias Court.
Yes the justices can be impeached because of wrong action, but how many actually ever have been? It can clearly be seen even in terms of the Presidential office that impeachment is a rare occurance. Government officials find a way to get around it, and who knows how many justices have been threatened by it, but pulled strings for the charges to be dismissed. Maybe a little far-fetched, but we as the citizens cannot trust these people who have been in office for over 20 years doing God only knows!
There is in fact nine judges to "ensure no one makes an extreme ruling" but what if more than half decide to make one?! Then it's okay?! how can nine people represent the people's opinions on cases if they are all so close. Even Scalia and his best friend that lady have probably made some deals to both agree to disagree. Tell me how that is fair!
I feel that there does need to be more checks on this group. They simply have too much unlimited power to make major decisions that affect us. Their time needs to be limited to ensure that nothing becomes regular that shouldn't be. The justices would know that they had only a limited amount of time in the Court and that they needed to make the best of it. Maybe they could get re-elected for a certain number of years, but that is minor details. First the number of years they are in office needs to no longer be by choice but by rule.
I agree with Morgan and Abbey. I think there is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court serving terms for a longer amount of time than anyone else. Although some deals have probably been made, as Celine said, I think that that will happen anywhere in politics and it does not make the Supreme Court any better or worse. It takes a lot of academic and job experience to actually become a Supreme Court Justice. The fact that the Justices have worked their way up this far is a big deal. They deserve the long terms because they have worked their butts off to be where they are today. Knowing about their hard work and dedication, I trust their decisions on cases. If they worked so hard for this spot, why would they throw it all away by being unprofessional and by not being held accountable for their decisions? As Abbey said, it is their duty to be impartial and to have a level head about every case. Their passion and determination has gotten them this far and they are wise enough to be held accountable for their decisions. As Abbey said, limiting the judicial branch's power would make things more political and less objective. I think the system is working fine for now by preserving the objective nature of the Supreme Court Justices.
I believe that the Supreme Court Justice's terms are perfectly fine the way they are. First of all, The United States needs good justices, and they need justices who have plenty of experience. The Supreme Court Justices have to have heard countless challanging trials so they know what to do when faced with difficult circumstances. Also, every Supreme Court Justice needs understand the workings of the court system to the core. These are very hard credentials to acquire, so I believe that when someone does acquire these credentials and is nominated to the Supreme Court, they deserve to maintain the position, if selected, until they resign. The reason behind my opinion on the matter is because these people have worked their whole lives to hopefully be in that Supreme Court Justice position one day. If they are awarded the honor of being a Supreme Court Justice, then they deserve that spot for as long as they desire to have it. The Supreme Court is so important and as citizens of the United States, we put our trust in them to make ethical, proper decisions on cases that the people cannot decide for themselves. There, in my opinion, is the perfect amount of checks and balances within the three branches of government. The judicial branch is very important, and it's powers are not overbearing. Therefore, I do not see a justifiable reason to put more restrictions on the judicial branch expecially the Supreme Court. It serves a very important purpose and has been around for years. Some may argue that the justice's need to have shorter terms but then again I would rather prefer an old, EXPERIENCED Supreme Court Justice than a younger, inexperienced one. Trust needs to be implemented in these justice's because they represent the people of the United States; they make decisions to better the country and the country's people. There should not be any restrictions on a branch that's trying to maintain America's democratic state.
I really like the way the Supreme Court has been going. I believe that the Supreme Court Justices are qualified men and women who do their best and don’t abuse the power they are given. I feel there is no need to limit their power what so ever. As long as they continue to interpret the constitution and remain unbiased and fair, I will continue to have no problems with them. I agree with Morgan that it is an honor for these men and women to be on the Supreme Court and that they are intelligent people who are very passionate about their jobs. I also agree with Abbey and her point that it is good that the judges don’t have to worry about the politics of getting reelected, so they can be unbiased with cases. Also, I really like the panel of judges because I feel that it is a check on all the judges within the court so there won’t be any to hasty decisions made, which is another reason for there being no need to limit power.
In my opinion, being in the Supreme Court for life once elected is a very efficient way of doing things. When politics gets in the way and judges have to wonder about getting reelected and striving to please the people, then we lose the real justice system. If someone very popular committed some awful crime that somehow made it to the Supreme Court, we do not want the fact that the public loves this person to interfere with the way the rulings would go. The way I see things, these judges have worked long and hard to get to where they are, and once they get there, then we have to trust that they are qualified. They are not free of abiding by the law, and just as we are all held accountable, so are they. By saying they are in for life with “good behavior”, I think we can assume that they know what that means and won’t go power crazy or make decisions without reason. Although my knowledge on Supreme Court Justices is not extensive, I have not heard about any issues recently which have caused people to question why certain members of the Supreme Court are allowed to remain on for life. It is very unique for such a position to actually be removed from the political aspect of it, and I think that this is the way it should remain and that we can trust that these justices will continue on with “good behavior”.
I agree with everyone except for Celine. Why fix what isn’t broken? I think the set-up of the Supreme Court actually helps make that system less corrupt. It cuts out a lot of unnecessary politics and we wouldn’t have to worry about which candidates are honest or will favor the same issues as we do. I think keeping the American people out of the process ensures that those appointed will be honest and strong at their job. It’s easy for the citizens to feel that they should have some say in who sits on that bench, but another election process would not only turn more and more voters AWAY from voting, it will also make campaigning so much more intense and it would never end. Commercials and news articles would constantly revolve around the candidates and it would become downright overwhelming.
The system we have is fine, if we were to change anything I would recommend the wasted time the justices spend on vacation; it’s absurd. If we could just fix their schedules so that their free time is distributed equally they would get so much done faster. But that is an entirely different topic.
In my opinion, the best way to ensure that the Supreme Court remains accountable for their decisions is to continue having the life long terms. By doing this, the justices become more trained in how they determine certain cases. As we talked in class, we brought up the point that sometimes people's emotions get in the way. If the justices serve for a very long time they will become accustomed to putting their emotions to the side and fairly judging a case.
In my opinion, life terms based off good behavior are very helpful to the Supreme Court. Not having a set term length allows the justices to be set apart from the politics and chaos that is created in Washington, especially around elections. Due to the importance of the Supreme Court, I think that the justices deserve to serve life terms because of the knowledge and experience it takes to effectively carry out the duties at hand. Interpreting the Constitution and presiding over tough cases is no walk in the park, basing the justices' actions on good behavior is a good foundation. Besides, having a standard term length and elections would cause an imbalance, instability, and overall hinder the ultimate task at hand because the goal would change from interpretation to reelections, thus defeating the purpose of the Supreme Court. Not having elections means having less chances of corrupt actions taking place in the court. The justices have gotten themselves this far based off their experience and knowledge that they have accumulated over the years, so I believe that their decisions are reliable because they know when to set aside their beliefs in order to better the law for the American people. Justices can also continue this practice while serving their life terms because experience is a great teacher. Why change the system when it is already running smoothly and efficiently?
I agree with what Abbey and Morgan said in keeping the justices’ terms for life. I think that if you keep the terms shorter, it will become more about politics rather than making the correct decisions and being unbiased. I don’t think that there have been an issues with the justices having life terms so there isn’t a solid reason to change it. I think that the justices are highly skilled enough to the point where most judges are not able to do their job and they deserve to be in the position for life. I believe that when the justices are chosen by the President and the Senate, they are obviously highly qualified and the best people you can find for the job. Just because the Senate is not considered a democratic branch doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad thing. I believe that the Supreme Court has a good amount of power that isn’t too much. It is important for some Court to have that much power because someone needs to be able to interpret the Constitution and make rulings based on it. It is rare to be find people in politics that are unbiased and that’s why it is so important to keep the well qualified justices in their spot on the Court.
At first, I did not agree with the fact that justices on the Supreme Court are appointed to life terms. However, after our class discussions and considering the points other people have made, I agree with those who say that the life terms of justices should remain how they are. By being appointed for a life term, the pressure of having to keep running for reelection does not exist anymore. Therefore, the justices are less concerned with pleasing the majority than they are with making sure what the Constitution states is established throughout our country. This means they may make decisions that the people disagree with, but they make these decisions by interpreting and following the Constitution, the law of the land. Removing life terms, I now agree, would open up a wider door for corruption in the court system, which is something our nation certainly does not need. We see types of corruption in government on a daily basis, which a lot has to do with the conflicting political ideology and parties. A Supreme Court justice, again, is not there to abide by what the people may want most, but to what the Constitution says.
Post a Comment