The United States Supreme Court is the highest judge on the most important issues that our country faces involving the constitution. These judgements are entrusted to nine men and women who, once appointed, can remain in their positions for as long as they live. There is no other Supreme Court in the world that permits their justices to serve for life (Morrison np). The high court officials of most other countries serve for fixed term lengths or are required to retire at a certain age (Morrison np). It appears that much has changed since the inception of the United States Supreme Court in 1787; and life tenure no longer seems to be the most appropriate approach. The United States Constitution states that justices “shall hold office during …show more content…
At one point in time, there was an eleven year stretch where no justices were appointed, and then two new justices were appointed at almost the same time (Morrison np). The voters should have an idea on how many vacancies a president will have instead of leaving that to pure chance. The justices themselves will also try to stay on until a president that is the member of their own party becomes president (Morrison np). Other people will also try to persuade a justice to retire or stay on the Court just because of who their replacement will be. This points out how necessary it is for us to transform this process because we are allowing a government official to choose the president that will appoint their …show more content…
When fully enacted, the 18-year term would allow each president to elect two Supreme Court Justices per term (Ringhand np). Vacancies would be predictable as they would happen every two years. If a sitting justice becomes ill or dies before their expected resignation, than he or she could temporarily be replaced by a lower court judge or one of the already retired Supreme Court judges. This system would increase the Supreme Courts democratic accountability. Studies have shown that throughout time, justices ideas “drift” away from what they had been at the time in which they were elected (Ringhand np). More frequent replacements would reduce this and their views would better reflect the ideas of the American people. A major problem is that life tenure can allow justices to become disconnected with the nation that they help lead. Staggered 18-year terms will reduce this problem
Even though a prosecutor asked for six years, the judge gave six months. William does not agree with how the Independent Judiciary system works. He points out that people have little control after voting a judge in. After that, the people follow the rules with little control to call for a recall or for the judge to step down. The people just have to follow the guidelines set up by the judge.
The bill would mainly serve to grant the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme court, up to a maximum of six, for every court member over the age seventy years and six
It is widely known that the 22nd amendment was implemented to limit the power of the executive branch to a two-term presidency, but this essay argues that it was passed largely due to biases in Congress at that time. During his 12-year stint as president, Franklin D. Roosevelt passed an unparalleled amount
Melissa Kay Olivieri 2516826 March 8,2017 Throughout Chapters 4 and 5 of America’s Constitution: A Biography, Akhil Reed Amar details the president 's powerful responsibilities and limits as well as how those relate to either a monarch or a governor. In Chapter 4 Amar focuses on how the president 's power will compare with other types of political power both foreign and domestic. One of the differences included the amount of time a single term of presidency would be-four years as opposed to a monarch 's lifetime reign, or a governor’s one year period. An important change in how the president came to be in office was that he was chosen from the people he would govern, this was not true of either monarchs or governors.
You do not want Xlandia to be run on biases. If the people do select who are their judges, then they may be picking who will be kind to them, instead of being fair. You do not want a biased vote when it comes to the Constitution’s laws. We recommend that the Supreme Court should be independent and have the power of judicial review.
Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” This quote stated by George Bernard Shaw represents America’s jury system perfectly. We should ultimately eliminate the jury system from court, and use the bench system in all criminal and civil cases. Although there are many reasons why eliminating the jury system is a better choice, many people want to keep the jury system only because we have used it for a long time and they fear change. Without change, progress is impossible and those who want to keep the jury system should change their mind.
The 22nd amendment states that, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...” Recent discussions and proposals have been put forth to repeal or modify the amendment. No person should have that opportunity to surrender to the charms of power. Two four year terms should be more than enough time to make a positive change for the nation. Two Presidential terms should be the limit of power, and I am not the only person who believes so.
The Supreme Court is an extremely important part of government. As such, we need healthy judges that are on top of their mental game. Therefore, term limits are necessary because newer judges can have a different point of view, mental health will be reduced, and the majority of Americans support term limits. If we have newer judges they will have a different point of view. In the article, Christopher stated that “It would mean a court that more accurately refers the changes and judgements of the society.”
The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
John Adams attempted to fulfill the many roles of a President during 1797 through 1801 as a way to maintain a stable government and to help the nation prosper as a whole. After the XYZ affair and the Alien and Sedation Acts, the tension between France and the United States continued to increase as well as the possibility of war between the two. Since the threat from France continued to be present, he authorized the establishment of an army and navy to fight in the "unofficial war", the Quasi War, while he searched for another method to end the conflict with a peaceful resolution. Due to the distinct ideas of how to deal with France, Adams soon split from Hamilton and, to the surprise of many, announced the Treaty of Mortefontance on February
As a result, Lincoln restructured the court system to make it objective and unbiased. In his First Annual Message on December 3, 1861, Lincoln stated, “...the country generally has outgrown our present judicial system.” He wrote this for the people of the United States to explain and justify changing the Court. By the end of 1862, Lincoln filled three justice spots with people from his own party, giving the court system an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. With that, even though both presidents had similar experiences with Congress, their relationship to the Supreme Court was vastly
For instance, I believe that the federal selection system should not allow judges to have the seat for life. Once a judge reaches the retirement age of 65 they should have to step down. This is because after a certain point of serving as a judge, people start to lose interest or they tend not to care as much. When their age is also put into this situation they tend to not know what is going on. They lose the ability to focus and retain what is happening in a case.
The people who serve are called associate justices. There are 8 of them ,and one leader a total of 9! The leader is called the chief justices are approved by the president and the senate they serve for life .They can only lose their job by impeachment .There are 12 court of appeals , There are 2 important legal concepts. Amendments
This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms. In considering the equity of the pros and cons it is my opinion that the existing system in place works best. Every system is flawed.