Term limits could increase the quality of the Supreme Court nominees. One of the driving factors behind a Supreme Court nominee is their age (Ringhand np). Individuals over 60 years of age are less likely to be appointed. This means presidents intentionally exclude a large number of highly qualified individuals from serving on our nation’s highest court (Ringhand np). Term limits resolve this problem. Furthermore, the threat of a justice’s cognitive decline may be reduced, since there would no longer be a temptation to hold out for a strategically timed retirement. Congress should pass an amendment that requires a staggered 18-year term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court justices. Under this proposal, each justice would serve for 18 years, and the terms would be established so that there is a vacancy every two years. The vacancies would be on the first and third years of the presidential term. This would allow enough time so the senate would pass this nomination through and the president would not be denied one of his two appointees. The …show more content…
However, this is not the only option. Being appointed without the possibility of renewal, such as an 18-year term limit, would accomplish the same goal. In both situations, the judges would not have to seek reappointment, run for office, or worry about their political popularity. Life tenure creates at least three problems. First, it allows bad judges to stay on the bench for an indefinite period of time. Second, life tenure allows all judges, including those judges who were very good at what they did, to stay on the bench even after they are long past doing their best work. Third and finally, life tenure allows justices to “rig the system”, as their productivity and effectiveness drastically decrease, while they wait for a president to nominate their successor who has similar viewpoints to theirs (Lazarus
The strategic model acknowledges that judges seek to achieve policy goals, but it also acknowledges that they are subject to certain restrictions in doing so. Since they cannot act accordingly to preference, they must act strategically to achieve their goals given by the restrictions. It argues that like politicians, justices make their decisions based off other’s decisions or make their decisions while trying to determine how another person will react from it. This decision style says justices would base their decisions on the influence of other justices.
... eye. While Toobin gave me great insight to the people who make up the Supreme Court, this book has become dated in some aspects. Stevens and Souter no longer are a part of the Supreme Court. As this book shows, each individual Justice makes up the personality of Supreme Court, which is now sightly different, without Justices Stevens and Souter. The nine justices in the book served together longer than any other group of Justices. Toobin describes the how each of the Justices got appointed to the Supreme court, including the failed nominations that ultimately brought each of the Justices to the Supreme court. The Supreme Court shapes our country in ways that no other branch of government can, because they are appointed for life. Ultimately, nominating a Supreme Court Justics, is one of the most far reaching and lasting way a president can shape our nation.
Preventing federal judges to serve for life is a good concept, except when the judges become too old to continue presiding. Setting term limits for judges would be a great idea, because it would add diversity to the court systems every time a new judge arrives. Some judges are just too old, and senile, to still rule on cases and do their job effectively; therefore, setting term limits would ultimately benefit the courts because it would allow for diversity, and a new judge who may have different standards.
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
Larry Sabato author of “A More Perfect Constitution” implies the United States Constitution could use some revision. Written over two hundred years ago, I do not think this concept is astonishing. I believe the founding father were aware of potential flaws, allowing for amendments or changes. Sabato book proposes some changes and the “calling for a twenty-first-century constitutional convention.” This book review will look at four of Sabato suggestions; reforming the Senate, balancing the budget, a six-year presidential term, and the Electoral College. These four recommendations were of greatest interest and intrigue. Although I do agree with all his ideas, I do feel there is more to improvement in our constitution and commend his efforts is awakening the American people to a need for reform.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if your worst fears became reality? For the founding father and crafters of the U.S. Constitution those fears have come to roost. What was originally designed to be the foundation of our country, and the law of the land; has now been amended out of existence. The ratification of the 17th Amendment changed the country’s political landscape and weakened the U.S. Constitution by allowing Senators to be directly elected by popular vote instead of by the legislatures of the states they represent. This Amendment was a byproduct of the Democratic Progressive movement. It was believed by some that it would correct the procedural issues and perceived political corruption associated with the election of state Senators to Congress. The Amendment was touted as a permanent solution to these problems, and would ultimately result in making politics and the political process more accessible to the average citizen. However, the 17th Amendment has failed to deliver on its promises, and has produced a Senate that is even less responsive to voters, even more corrupt with campaign contributions and allegiances to large corporations and special interest groups, and fails to truly represent the interests of the states. Moreover, the 17th Amendment removed a crucial check and balance that was purposely designed into the Constitution in order to preserve state’s rights and prevent the abuse of federal powers. The 17th Amendment should be repealed in order to restore the intended power and sovereignty of the state, preserve the original federal distributive powers system, and to prevent the spread of abusive federal powers.
I agree with the statement, “The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, limiting the American president to elected terms in office, has been successful and should be retained. This amendment has facilitated rotation in office and new ideas, both crucial to an effective democracy.”. The statement is an agreeable because it does not deprive citizens of their right to elect, it opens the candidate pool, problems have not arisen, and stops the country from being a monarchy. The 22nd Amendment limits the American president to two terms, totaling to eight years in office. The restrictions made by the 22nd Amendment have not proven to be a problem.
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.
There are many potential benefits and disadvantages to electing judges to Texas’ highest courts. The decision to elect judges is an interesting one. On the positive side, the Texas Judges are always in tune with what is going on in Texas currently. It keeps faces fresh and forces them to make the decisions that the people want by way of laws rules and state morals. It also holds the party ideals that many Texans want accountable. This is one of the common complaints about the United States Supreme Court. The complaint is that many Supreme Court justices are out of touch with what the people want. That they are not held accountable for their findings within each court case. Texas aims to stop this with elections every six years. The downside to this election based court justices is the same answer as to the benefits. They are forced to be in tune with what Texans want which is not necessarily the best for all Texas citizens particularly minorities. Texas judges cannot make unpopular decisions and expect to keep their job. So even if it might be the “right” decision, it is not necessarily the decision the Texas courts might come
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan statewide elections. Mid-term vacancices are filled by appointment. State law requires that nominees are state residents and have practiced law for a minimum of seven years.
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
Many judges, whether appointed or elected, tend to serve for life. Often times, once they are in place, then it is very difficult to remove them. The advantage of having judges that are older is for their experience and wisdom. These judges are typically able to make sound judgments. They have obtained a degree of respect from their community and judicial colleagues. If a judge is able to maintain a sound mind and is physically fit to stay on the bench, then there should not be a cause of concern. However, with the aging process, the human body begins to decline. Unfortunately, sound judgment and memory begins to diminish. The body begins to weaken and it becomes increasingly difficult for a judge to keep up with the demand for the job. Often time than not, the judge is the one who decides when he should step down. If he a defiant person, then that decision will be a difficult one for him to make even though his stepping down would be for the betterment of all people. Most judges are able to continue serving even into advanced ages. As long as they are capable, then they should continue to do
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to allow a multitude of additional benefits.
One method for avoiding a debilitated Court would be to pass a Constitutional Amendment. It would take an amendment to impose a mandatory retirement age since the Constitution assures the justices life tenure to secure their judicial independence. This new amendment would propose to phase out older justices in an effort to be the most beneficial to the public for which they are meant to serve.