People say that every professor uses its own books when they go teach a class. It should be the same way for Presidents and the makeup of the Supreme Court. In Article III it states that a once elected into the Supreme Court judges can stay in power for as long as they want. Having the Supreme Court judges stay in power for as long as they want is not good. Judges see the world differently from what it was to what it is now, the president should be able to choose who is on his “team”, and finally it stops the fear of the citizens of a bad choice for justice.
FIRST BODY PARAGRAPH
The first reason the law should change is that Judges see the world differently from what it was to what it is now. For example, Antonin Scalia was on the Supreme Court from 1986 to 2016.30 years is a lot of time, with a lot of time usually comes a lot of change. This can be seen very clearly in the United States. One major difference that has occurred is the internet. In the 80’s there wasn't any phones or any computers. This meant that if you had a
…show more content…
For example, the president appoints the Cabinet. Donald Trump is now appointing treasury secretary, attorney general, and CIA director. This means that when a president is appointed they bring in people that they choose. Meaning that when the people voted for Trump they had at least a good idea of who he was going to nominate in certain positions. There was controversy with Senator Jeff Sessions being nominated by Trump for Attorney general between the Democrats.There is also controversy with who Trump is going to pick for the Supreme Court (Yuhas, Alan).The change in law will fix this because new judges will be elected more often, allowing the people to know who they vote for (certain people) when voting for the president .That is why having the president choose who he wants as Judges is the second reason the law should be
... 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.
Federalist #78, written by Alexander Hamilton, is an essay to argue for the proposed federal courts, their powers, and means of appointing judges. In the essay, Hamilton claims that the judiciary will be the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.” He says it will be the least , dangerous because the branch will be the least in abundant use. This implies that the other two branches will be used more. The executive branch not only “dispenses the honors”, but also enforce the laws over the entire country. The legislative branch holds the budget for the country and creates the laws in which the citizens must abide by. The judiciary, he says, will have no power over the executive and legislative branches. He also writes that it cannot move forward the society in wealth and in strength, and cannot resolve any active problems that the country is facing in any circumstances. According to Hamilton, the judiciary could be said to have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” and that it must depend on the executive branch, even to make their judgments more effectiv...
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
Can you imagine president controlling your life? The constitution use three different forms to make a group or a person from getting too much power on his hands. The are three types of power that each contusion have in order to keep power equal. One of them is Legislative Branch Congress “Can approve Presidential nominations”(Document C). It’s a example how governments try to keep power equal.
By taking the oath required, “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” (U.S. Code), the federal court judges are then protected by the other branches in the system. The other branches are not to have an influence in the judge’s decision. With the federal court judges being as protected as they are it means that they are free to make any decision they feel is right under the law without worrying about consequences. Which I personally think is fair because the federal court judges have to make decisions that society may not agree with, but it is what is best. Protection allows the judges to have free range of their decisions because it is going to better the society. The federal court judges have nothing to fear, they are safe in their decisions which I
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...
Judicial Branches basic job is to determine if laws or acts are unconstitutional. Subsequently, the U.S. Judicial branch checks both the Executive and Legislative branch through checks and balances. The judicial branch has the ability to rule presidential actions unconstitutional and has its judges serve for life. The Judicial Branch can also declare and interpret laws written by the Legislative Branch, and signed by the Executive Branch, unconstitutional. One example of the Judicial Branch checking the Executive Branch was in Late 2014 when the Judicial Branch declared Obama’s immigration acts unconstitutional. This allows the Judicial Branch to check the Executive Branch by allowing laws passed by the Executive Branch to be unconstitutional and not be
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
...09). Congress is supposed to enact laws, and the ability of judges to modify them with court decisions shows how their power may extend past what the system of checks and balances had intended. The last aspect that shows how powerful this branch may be is the judges. Originally, the lifetime appointment was supposed to relieve them of pressures when deciding cases, but this serves as a double edged sword. Judges without fear of retribution shows the amount of power that they posses. Overall, the development of judicial review, judges lifetime appointment, and ability to modify laws has led to an unbalance of power by the Judicial Branch among the three branches of government.
Their long term in office liberates judges from partisan burdens and inhibits attacks on judicial power by the executive and legislative branch. Independence gives the judicial branch the ability to guard the Constitution and the rights of the people against the legislature. That means that he believes that the judicial branch is less likely to abuse a person's as compared to the executive or legislative. He felt that judges should have independence from the sanction of the executive, legislature, and the individuals so they can satisfy the judicial qualities defined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution offers that federal judges are selected to life term thru good behavior, so the courts can remain independent from the other two
Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values
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.
I think that it is important to remember that the framers were fairly new at creating a government unlike any other government in the world and their main concern was freedom from government control. It appears that their biggest mistake was not applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government. It also becomes problematic in that two men, having different political beliefs and opinions, can interpret the same law in very different ways. Thus, the Supreme Court, established in 1789, which consists of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. In other words, when there is disagreement concerning constitutional law, the Supreme Court settles it. The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in itself has become conflictual due to affiliations which could certainly sway decisions in favor of one particular political
...appoint Justices to the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote approval by the House, has been turned upside down. Mitch McConnell, a senior US senator, has prevented Obama’s liberal appointee, Merrick Garland, from even being considered. The refusal to hear from or possibly even consider Obama’s nominee is a bold move by the Legislative branch to gain back lost power from the executive branch. In Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison writes, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next glace oblige it to control itself.” It is the Constitution 's founders who tried to inhibit the abuse of power, but the executive branch has continually stepped over its boundaries, and now the Legislative branch is following in the presidential footsteps.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.