Free Essay About The Benefits Of Having Lifetime Appointments To The
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
One of the benefits of having a lifetime tenure as judge includes being free from public opinion or political favor and pressure. Such length of stay ensures the objectivity of the judge's decision-making as they are insulated from any external political pressure. Judges can secure independence as they do not need such approval from external force like political office or public to stay in the office.
Aside from that, if a judge will stay for a lifetime, it will be difficult for a political movement to gain control over the Supreme Court. With this type of tenure, there will be a faster form of lawmaking by the Congress through ordinary legislative and slower form of lawmaking by the Supreme Court. This type of action will ensure and promote good public policy.
WHAT PROBLEMS MIGHT SUCH APPOINTMENTS CAUSE?
There were two problems that limited term may face. First is its application to the sitting Justices and President and their period of stay. Since the sitting justices were appointed under the agreement that they will be in position for a lifetime, it will be unfair if they will be removed from the post because of the amendment. The sitting president can also be affected because any president in position will push the ratification to be effective in the following elected president as they will be insisting that the one they placed in position shall serve lifetime.
The second problem is on how the vacancy of the position will be treated if the current Justice die or resign in the middle of his term when the amendment hasn't been effective yet. If the amendment will be institutionalized in an odd year, that will make their tenure in the office longer compared to those who will stay be elected in an even year that will only stay for exactly eighteen years. In the case the sitting judge will resign or die during his term, and then the question of the length of stay of the replacement will arise asking if the replacement shall just finish a limited term or serve for lifetime as well.
WHAT WOULD BE THE LIKELY RESULT IF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FACED TERM LIMITS?
United States is against lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices that among its fifty states, only Rhode Island provides such length of stay to its Supreme Court. For the rest of the states, jury can only stay for six to fourteen years. Thus it will be easier to get the favor of politicians as almost all states are not in favor of the lifetime term.
Having the Justice stay limited to one term, it will still guarantee the independence from other politician or external forces as the retired judges will not be allowed to renew their term. Therefore, politicians most likely will not support a judge as it will not be able to give favor to a party as their stay is limited. Aside from that, it will also make the term of a judge longer than what it used to during 1789 but shorter than the post 1970 terms and will make the retirement age of justices’ decline. But most importantly, it will prevent such irregular timing of vacancies.