If life tenure is such a good idea, as it would eliminate the above mentioned problems, then why are so many in opposition of term limits and shuns the proposals? They value judicial independence, and they all have forms of accountability and term limits, so what are the reasons for their views and objections about cutting life tenure? Making term limits would not make the stakes any less important or productive. The Supreme Court is supposed to be immune from democracy’s demands; term limits would not help the function of the court if so then politicians who have faced Washington for decades should also be constricted. Limiting the terms of public office is unresponsive to any significant dimension of our politics. (David Harsanvi; 2014)
…show more content…
Term limits proposed would break the justices into three classes which are replaced every 4 to 5 years if an opening does not come before then. The second half states that the congress or the state legislators can repeal and decision the Supreme Court makes without presidential threats of a veto if done within twenty four months of the decision. The framers gave congress the power to define the size or courts and the make-up of the federal courts. They expected the courts to be the least dangerous government branch, which it was until the decision in the Marbury v. Madison case, under the decision citing Claus of Article VI: “The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?” ( John Dickhaus; 2013) This decision means the rights were given to the Supreme Court to decide this case even though it was stated in the constitution. The courts give many reasons for us to be ashamed of them, but does this warrant the need to limit the tenure of federal judges and turn the court into a partisan war zone? Justices are not concerned with popularity, they make hard, life altering decisions every day without the fear of making many people mad. Justice should be able to sit the bench without fear of worrying about their positions in the court and focus their time and energy on the hard judicial case decisions that come their
Term limits proposed would break the justices into three classes which are replaced every 4 to 5 years if an opening does not come before then. The second half states that the congress or the state legislators can repeal and decision the Supreme Court makes without presidential threats of a veto if done within twenty four months of the decision. The framers gave congress the power to define the size or courts and the make-up of the federal courts. They expected the courts to be the least dangerous government branch, which it was until the decision in the Marbury v. Madison case, under the decision citing Claus of Article VI: “The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?” ( John Dickhaus; 2013) This decision means the rights were given to the Supreme Court to decide this case even though it was stated in the constitution. The courts give many reasons for us to be ashamed of them, but does this warrant the need to limit the tenure of federal judges and turn the court into a partisan war zone? Justices are not concerned with popularity, they make hard, life altering decisions every day without the fear of making many people mad. Justice should be able to sit the bench without fear of worrying about their positions in the court and focus their time and energy on the hard judicial case decisions that come their