More handpicked essays just for you.
The power of american judiciary as a branch of the government
The art of persuasion essay
The art of persuasion essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States judicial system has the least written about it in the constitution out of all of the three branches, with only two sections outlining the structure of the entire system. This means that much of the judicial branch's power has come from precedents over time and legislation from Congress, leaving the branch far from perfect. Sadly one of the biggest flaws of the court system comes from Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution, which says that federal judges serve for life while on good behavior. Lifetime tenure for federal judges must be replaced with fixed terms in order ensure the courts stability and functionality.
The problems that lifetime tenure causes according to Sabato are numerous as well as disastrous. The first
…show more content…
problem that he points out is that since justices serve for life, having a judge on the supreme court that shares the president's ideology is extremely beneficial to him. This is causing modern presidents to nominate younger and younger judges to serve on the supreme court. To such an extent that according to Sabato the average tenure length for justices has jumped from 15 years before 1970, to 25 years after. The problem here being that presidents will choose less experienced judges to serve on the Supreme Court over more qualified justices, in order to have their pick serve longer on the bench.Still probably Sabatos most persuasive argument is that when judges serve 25 plus years in a position that is insulated from public views, it causes their ideals to become outdated.
Twenty five years is enough time for children to become adults, which means that justices who serve for that long represent a completely different generations ideology. How can nine people from a completely different time decide the law for an entire country that has very different views of right and wrong. Sabato’s solution for these problems is straightforward and effective is to abolish lifetime tenure completely and replace it with a 15 year fixed term. This term would apply to all federal judges in every level, with judges in district courts (which do not decide constitutionality of law) able to apply to congress for a five year extension. This solution has many benefits, the first of which being that presidents will no longer feel pressure to nominate younger judges who would be able to serve for more than twenty years. The second benefit is that it will ensure that Judges will only preside over the generation that shares their ideals. Sabatos idea of ending lifetime tenure is supported by …show more content…
Joseph Kokenge a reporter at Propublica, which is a non-profit, non-partisan, reporting office, dedicated to investigating ideas for the public good, and published author Joseph Goldstein. Yet in their article Life Tenure for Federal Judges Raises Issues of Senility, Dementia, Goldstein and Kokenge argue for an end to lifetime tenure for a different while equally valid point. The article argues the point that if judges can only be removed from the bench when the justice does something illegal then there is nothing to stop a mentally deteriorating judge to remain in power and decide the fate of peoples lives(Goldstein and Kokenge, 2011). In fact that exact incident has happened before, when judge Richard Owens at age 84, in 2007 during a meeting with his interns “asked for someone to explain this newfangled mode of communication the lawyers kept mentioning -- e-mail”, when the most famous case of his career about a silicon valley investment banker completely revolved around an email (Goldstein and Kokenge, 2011). This means that either his memory was deteriorating or that he decided the case without understanding the main piece of evidence, both of which would be unacceptable. If it was the latter then it is just further evidence of the wisdom Sabato shows when he argued that judges can not serve for 25 years without risk of being forced to preside over a generation which the judge does not understand. Figure 3 shows every supreme court justice that was nominated for their seat after 1900 along with how old each judge was when appointmented and the length of their tenure or how long each was on the bench. This data table has two important trends that need to be analysed, the first looks at the change in tenure length before and after 1970, while the second looks at the age that judges were appointed to the supreme court. Starting with the first trend that looks at the change in judges tenure length before and after 1970, which according to the table shows that the length of justices tenure increases after 1970. More specifically the average tenure length prior to 1970 which is 14 years 55 days, increases to 19 years and 110 days. That means judges are staying an average of 5 years and 55 days longer on the bench than justices before 1970. On the other hand the second trend about the age of justices at appointment shows something else of interest. Looking at the average appointment age for judges overall, and comparing it to the average ages before and after 1970, the graph shows relatively no change between them. With less than four years difference between all the averages it is safe to assume that the ages at which presidents are appointing justices to the Supreme Court has remained constant throughout the 1900’s. Figure 3: Supreme Court Justices Age at Appointment Tenure Length Holmes, Oliver Wendell 61 29 years, 39 days Day, William Rufus 54 19 years, 263 days Moody, William Henry 53 3 years, 343 days Lurton, Horace Harmon 65 4 years, 204 days Hughes, Charles Evans 48 5 years, 244 days White, Douglass 65 10 years, 151 days Van Devanter, Willis 51 26 years, 168 days Lamar, Joseph Rucker 53 5 years, 16 days Pitney, Mahlon 54 10 years, 293 days McReynolds, James Clark 52 26 years, 155 days Brandeis, Louis Dembitz 60 22 years, 257 days Clarke, John Hessin 59 6 years, 43 days Taft, William 64 8 years, 207 days Sutherland, George 60 15 years, 134 days Butler, Pierce 56 16 years, 330 days Sanford, Edward Terry 58 7 years, 38 days Stone, Harlan Fiske 53 16 years, 148 days Roberts, Owen Josephus 55 15 years, 72 days Cardozo, Benjamin Nathan 62 6 years, 129 days Black, Hugo Lafayette 51 34 years, 30 days Reed, Stanley Forman 54 19 years, 29 days Frankfurter, Felix 57 23 years, 220 days Douglas, William Orville 41 36 years, 211 days Murphy, Frank 50 9 years, 182 days Harlan, Stone 69 4 years, 293 days Byrnes, James Francis 59 1 year, 87 days Jackson, Robert Houghwout 49 13 years, 90 days Rutledge, Wiley Blount 49 6 years, 211 days Burton, Harold Hitz 57 13 years, 21 days vinson, fred 56 7 years, 76 days Clark, Tom Campbell 50 17 years, 297 days Minton, Sherman 59 7 years, 3 days Harlan, John Marshall 56 16 years, 190 days Brennan, William J., Jr. 51 33 years, 278 days Whittaker, Charles Evans 56 5 years, 9 days Stewart, Potter 44 22 years, 262 days White, Byron Raymond 45 31 years, 73 days Goldberg, Arthur Joseph 54 2 years, 301 days Fortas, Abe 55 3 years, 222 days Marshall, Thurgood 59 23 years, 364 days Blackmun, Harry A. (1970) 62 24 years, 55 days Warren, Burger 62 17 years, 95 days Powell, Lewis F., Jr. 64 15 years, 170 days Rehnquist, William H. 47 14 years, 262 days Scalia, Antonin 50 29 years, 140 days Kennedy, Anthony 52 Incumbent Souter, David 51 18 years, 263 days Thomas, Clarence 43 Incumbent Ginsburg, Ruth 60 Incumbent Breyer, Stephen 56 Incumbent Roberts, John 50 Incumbent Alito, Samuel 56 Incumbent Sotomayor, Sonia 55 Incumbent Kagan, Elena 50 Incumbent Gorsuch, Neil 50 Incumbent Average 54.76 15 years 156 days Average 1900-1970 55.26 14 years 55 days Average 1970-Present 57.77 19 years 110 days While only half of the data in figure 3 is in line with Sabatos thesis it still proves the need for the abolition of lifetime tenure for federal judges.
Even though Sabato’s claim that presidents are appointing younger inexperienced judges to the Supreme Court appears to be incorrect, the remaining fact that the tenure length of judges is increasing is more than enough to prove the need for fixed terms for judges. The table clearly proves Sabatos idea that after 1970 the average tenure length for judges has increased, while it might not as drastic as 25 years, 20 years is still long enough to question if justices can preside over court to the best of their ability for so long. If the average appointment age is 57 and the average tenure length is 19 years then that means the average judge leaves the court at age 76. This is disturbing because the National Institute of Health, National Center for Biotechnology Information, and US National Library of Medicine all say that most decline in cognitive functionality happens after sixty. Meaning justices that were appointed at age 57 and decide to stay on the bench for 25 years are just ticking timebombs, waiting to lose all sense of reason and consequence while in the middle of a case. The table also proves Sabatos other point about judges being too far out of reach from the public's opinion when the average justice serves for 20 years. If twenty years marks the beginning of a new generation and a new set of norms and standards
then judges who stay for that long can not be allowed to force their outdated ideals on the new generation. Therefore Sabatos proposal for a single 15 year term for Supreme Court justices (and another 5 year renewable one for lower courts) is the perfect solution for the issue. 15 years is long enough to give the justices independence from the presidents who appointed them, while short enough to keep their ideas and beliefs relevant in society. The United States Supreme Court is far from perfect, but if the Constitution were revised to abolish the lifetime tenure for supreme court judges and create a fixed 15 year term limit, it will improve it immensely. If these changes are implemented it will create a better government to be under, and a better country to live in.
From 1992 to 2005, the Supreme Court’s decisions mostly mirrored public opinion. After Rehnquist’s passing in 2005, the Supreme Court has swung more in the direction of the conservative party than in pervious years. The conservative agenda is becoming more prominent than it was under Rehnquist and before O’Connor retired. Besides swing the court to the consertive side, Rehnquist’s passing also ended the longest running group of Justices to serve together. They had...
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.
Henson, J. (Interviewer) & Elkins, Z. (Interviewee). (2008). The Bases of Longevity in the U.S. Constitution [Interview video file].
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
In 1787 Article three of the constitution created the Supreme Court, but not until 1789 was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life. This court serves as the “supreme law of the land”, it has the power to determine if state or federal laws are in conflict with how the Court interprets the constitution.
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
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
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012