Forum Eight
Judicial Tenure
Why fix something that is not broken?
Some Americans claim judicial life tenure is essentially flawed, resulting in Justices that have longer tenures and remain on at later ages than ever before in history. Several proposals have been made to rectify this feeling people have toward a seemingly flawed undemocratic judicial system. As interestingly as alternative judicial tenures seem, the flaw is not enough to make a change and the changes will not make any significant difference anyway.
Life tenure for Supreme Court Justices has been a part of our Constitution since 1789, when the Framers created one Supreme Court and provided that its members "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." (Calabresi 2006). …show more content…
If an arbitrary age could be decided on, and written into the Constitution, it would become as obsolete as the numbers already contained within the Constitution. The age requirements of the President, Senate or House have become obsolete (Calabresi 2006). Or the twenty dollars jury trial requirement seems just silly today. What happens when life expectancy changes? Professor Ward Farnsworth of Boston University claimed inserted a mandatory retirement age for Justice was a bad idea that had no way of resolving any life tenure issue associated with the Court (Calabresi 2006). Professor Farnsworth further argued there was no comprehensive case made to reform life tenure anyway (Calabresi 2006). A fixed retirement age has no connection in reform any issue with the Supreme Court an may in fact be based on politics and attempts to undermine the independence of the Court …show more content…
It is necessary to allow judges’ freedom to decide cases according to law without creating a system that might create a atmosphere of political reprisals (Opeskin 2015, 627). Before making any changes to the independent objectively of interpreting the law, think about what problem there is to resolve. There is no political party that has dominated the Court. There has rarely been an issue of any Justice to old to serve. There is no scholarly claim that the constitutional independence the Court maintains needs to be changed. Furthermore, any such proposals are unconstitutional and would require an Amendment to enact. Since the arguments for change seem political driven and not based on judicial empirical evidence and the difficulty changing the Constitution, the argument is strongly interesting but weakly propositioned. Changes of this magnitude should only be accompanied with
Judicial Tenure
Why fix something that is not broken?
Some Americans claim judicial life tenure is essentially flawed, resulting in Justices that have longer tenures and remain on at later ages than ever before in history. Several proposals have been made to rectify this feeling people have toward a seemingly flawed undemocratic judicial system. As interestingly as alternative judicial tenures seem, the flaw is not enough to make a change and the changes will not make any significant difference anyway.
Life tenure for Supreme Court Justices has been a part of our Constitution since 1789, when the Framers created one Supreme Court and provided that its members "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." (Calabresi 2006). …show more content…
If an arbitrary age could be decided on, and written into the Constitution, it would become as obsolete as the numbers already contained within the Constitution. The age requirements of the President, Senate or House have become obsolete (Calabresi 2006). Or the twenty dollars jury trial requirement seems just silly today. What happens when life expectancy changes? Professor Ward Farnsworth of Boston University claimed inserted a mandatory retirement age for Justice was a bad idea that had no way of resolving any life tenure issue associated with the Court (Calabresi 2006). Professor Farnsworth further argued there was no comprehensive case made to reform life tenure anyway (Calabresi 2006). A fixed retirement age has no connection in reform any issue with the Supreme Court an may in fact be based on politics and attempts to undermine the independence of the Court …show more content…
It is necessary to allow judges’ freedom to decide cases according to law without creating a system that might create a atmosphere of political reprisals (Opeskin 2015, 627). Before making any changes to the independent objectively of interpreting the law, think about what problem there is to resolve. There is no political party that has dominated the Court. There has rarely been an issue of any Justice to old to serve. There is no scholarly claim that the constitutional independence the Court maintains needs to be changed. Furthermore, any such proposals are unconstitutional and would require an Amendment to enact. Since the arguments for change seem political driven and not based on judicial empirical evidence and the difficulty changing the Constitution, the argument is strongly interesting but weakly propositioned. Changes of this magnitude should only be accompanied with