Essay On Supreme Court

Improved Essays
The supreme court is one of the main pillars of government, whose original job was to rule over cases from original jurisdiction to appellate. However the court took on a very important power early on in it’s life, this power was the power to declare laws unconstitutional or judicial review. This power allows the court to govern to a limited extent their word essentially becoming law. This may be seen as some as a bad thing, however in all reality it may be a necessity. The supreme court acts similar to a watchdog in many cases. The power of judicial review combined with the fact that it 's the highest court means that its decision is essentially law. However it does change. The court is also unique in that it isn’t elected by the people. This means that the court may not always fall in opinion with the people. This is where the primary problem comes from. One side says that the life terms allows for impartial ruling however problems do arise when you consider generational shifts. Problems also arise with …show more content…
This in theory could cause problems, however this isn’t really the case the average term of a supreme court justice is only about 16 years(supreme court gov site). Granted the longest term was almost 37 however the shortest was a temporary chief justice who served a little over 5 months(supreme court). The more interesting part is that there are no actual requirements in the constitution to serve on the court(history.com). The court’s members where intended to be “men of wisdom”(class) not bound to the president or any political party. They where to act in the best interest of the nation. The nation not people mind you, infact the court 's opinion on issues change as it does a prime example being the “separate but equal” decision. It makes sense that the court changes with time. The question of this paper is whether or not they should be left to voters or the president to decide the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    For most of our history, the Supreme Court selection process was characterized by its insularity. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, most nominations almost involved exclusively the White House and the Senate. Public controversy over nominees rarely existed and the debate included a small number of insiders. The process of nominating Supreme Court justices manifested the cooperation of the three branches of American national government. The Constitution provides for presidential appointment power over “judges of the Supreme Court” with the “Advice and Consent” of the…

    • 1530 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Selective Incorporation

    • 1029 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Similar to the method and processes used to elect a president through the Electoral College, the Supreme Court works in a way that places the power of the government in educated individuals’ hands as opposed to the direct power of votes in an election for a state governor. It indirectly allows people to influence Court…

    • 1029 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Supreme Court should be able to overturn unconstitutional laws that Congress has passed. There are many reasons to give the Supreme Court this power, first we need someone to enforce the fact that no law should violate the Constitution. Next, it helps balance the three branches of government, and lastly the Constitution puts judicial power into the Supreme Court and inferior courts. This power will stop substandard laws from getting passed, and will protect the structure of our government that is extremely based on the Constitution.…

    • 516 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The institution of the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. They are the final decision makers and there is no check to their power. Yet their role in making changes to the constitution comes from some sort of injustice that makes us question how the text has been interpreted. A citizen must take legal action and go through an arduous process to reach the high court. This process is intentionally difficult so only matters that are truly perceived of as immoral and consist of enough social implications, will be heard. This eliminates many of the political and opinionated ideals that people want changed, but brings to light what society is passionate…

    • 1430 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hamilton explains the importance and meaning of the judiciary system and judicial review. He begins by mentioning the length of a term for a federal judge and the responsibilities of an appointed judge while also comparing the power of other branches to the judicial branch. A federal judge’s term is a full life time or when the person decides to retire. Hamilton defends the a life time term expressing that it would free judges from acting according to public interest and political pressure. He states that the judicial branch is the weakest of the three branches proposed in the new government. The Judicial system only has the power to judge, and their decisions are based upon if the executive branch can carry them out. The Judicial branch has “neither force nor will but merely judgment” (Hamilton 394). Force means that the judicial branch cannot enforce decisions made by the court, will means that the judicial branch cannot interpret or change laws based on their political desires. Hamilton explains that the judicial system is the least threatening to a person’s liberty and political rights, but on occasion the courts can treat a citizen unfairly or unjustly. Federalist 78 examines the Supreme Court’s right to declare laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s ability to declare a law unconstitutional leads many people to believe that the Judicial…

    • 1217 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Supreme Court has made a lot of important decisions that impact the lives of United States citizens every day. If I would have to summarize what I have learned from the United States Government class in very few words, it would have to be that the justice system was built to be fair and just for everyone and that the government structure was framed to be as effective as it can be. Even though history has shown more than once that the system can be exploited and government corrupt, like any system and governing body can, it still comes to show that it is effective and was put in place with the people in mind. There was a point in time where the two collided and one of the more important rulings of the Supreme Court has been made. I am talking…

    • 652 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I believe having a Supreme Court is valuable for any democracy to maintain fairness between governmental power and the rights of citizens. However, with a court that wields such authority, the justices serving these courts must be appointed in a manner that represents a balance in political ideology. Moreover, if multiple appointments are made to the Supreme Court by a president and congress of one political persuasion, the court’s rulings can overwhelmingly favor a particular political party’s ideology. Balanced judicial appointments create balanced rulings in most cases. This neutrality can be disrupted by political influence as evidenced in recent rulings. Whether you are for or against it, the Affordable Care Act was considered dead on arrival leading up to the Supreme Court ruling. Of the nine justices, five were considered to vote against the Affordable Care Act, thus leading to its demise. One of the justices within the majority would have to break rank and join the other side of the court for this act to be implemented. Surprisingly,…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the cases of US Term Limits v Thornton and Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court was used unnecessarily, and, instead, the cases could have been resolved in-state. In Arizona powers delegated to the states, like writing their own constitutions, was overridden by the supremacy of the Constitution. In cases such as these, the Constitution should not have been involved, should not have been the supreme overlord of a state and its people and its people’s rights. In Term Limits, the people of Arkansas had voted to remove long-standing incumbent officials from election ballots, though not completely eradicating them from the election. This would have been in the best interest of the people of Arkansas and have allotted for some fresh ideas coming into the legislature.* The states have Police Powers, which give them the ability to enact legislation that protects the safety, health, welfare, and morality of their citizens, and this law would fall under the welfare and morality categories because the state, with its people in agreement, thought that an incumbent 's constant presence in office prevented the growth of the state. In Arizona, the issue was similar, but…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What Is Lifetime Tenure

    • 254 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Constitution expressly states under Article III that “that judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold offices during good behavior”. This could be interpreted as an appointment whose term of office is for life so long as they are in good behavior. I personally do not agree with the lifetime tenure. I would prefer to have the Justices or Judges to serve at certain number of years like maybe 15 to 25 years. Lifetime tenure creates problems such as it allows bad Justices to remain at the bench for a long time except instances were impeachments against them prosper. Secondly, even the Justices are no longer productive and effective in doing their work they still enjoy the privilege on not getting fired from the job. Although,…

    • 254 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I think the Constitution should be flexible and that the United States Supreme Court should have the power to change laws that no longer reflect societal norms and that are deemed unconstitutional. The flexibility in the constitution allows the government to adapt to changing needs of the society in the future. Many people like James Madison believe that the Constitution should not be altered or fixed but rather followed the same way it was written. On the other hand, many Americans like Thomas Jefferson think that each generation should decide what the constitution should be governed. How would people feel when the structure was rigid as a rock, or our fundamental rights were violated due to the law. Times have changed, the society has changed…

    • 381 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Allowing Justices to serve for life allows for them to become “polarized” on certain issues and laws. Most people stick to what they believe in and do not change. With the changing world in need of certain changes, this may hurt the chance of changes being made. If the Justices had terms, more point of views would be expressed. People may see changes happening in laws and court cases. As stated by Christopher Ingraham, “statistically speaking, people are in much sharper shape mentally in their 40s, 50s, and 60s than they are in their 70s, 80s, and 90s”. Having term limits would allow younger men and women to get…

    • 473 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The United States Supreme Court is the uppermost federal court on the earth that offers lifetime tenure to a selected few. Justices John G. Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor are currently serving out their lifetime tenures and shaping the landscape of America with their decisions with various cases.…

    • 1506 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are several arguments encased in this reading. Although, the main argument is to initiate Article V of the constitution with the proposition over turning Judicial term limits. Within the United States constitution, it states if you need to amend, it can happen by two approaches, one being a state convention in order to gain approval for Congress to pass and ratify another amendment. For this convention to convene you need a total of thirty- four states participation and only some have initiated the process. The judges in the judiciary system, especially in the high court, serve until they retire or pass away.…

    • 328 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Pewresearch.com took a survey on Republicans, Democrats, and Independents on whether the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they are meant today or as they were originally written. Most Republicans said that the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they were originally written (69% to 29%). On the other hand, Democrats (70% to 26%) and Independents (48% to 47%) said that the court rulings today should be based on what the U.S. Constitution means in current times. In total 49% of the people that were surveyed, said that the Supreme Court should base rulings on today’s meaning of it. 46% of people surveyed said that they should rule court cases by how the U.S. Constitution was originally written. Although people today would want the Supreme Court by how they interpret the Constitution and would seem like a good idea, nothing extremely great can come from this, maybe only bad…

    • 1313 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays