Question

Under the US Constitution, all federal judges (including the nine Supreme Court justices) are appointed for life. They never have to get re-appointed. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Explain why.

Answer 1

For the remainder of their lives (or, more often today, before they wish to retire), the point of granting judges a seat on the bench is to protect the highest court of the country from the kind of partisan battle exemplified by the Chase impeachment. As a balance against the authority of Congress and the executive, the Supreme Court functions. The lifetime appointment is intended to ensure that political interference is isolated from the judges and that the court will function as a fully autonomous branch of government.

When they make unfavourable decisions, judges will not be dismissed, potentially encouraging them to rely on the law rather than politics. Justices can be named because a president views them as a political or ideological friend, but they should not be remembered until they are on the bench, even though their philosophy varies. For example, some information suggests that many judges actually drift to the left as they age.

Although the U.S. The Supreme Court has never had any term limits before, and substantial attempts have recently been made to enforce them. Term limits, proponents say, on the court could battle political imbalances. Presidents would not be able to nominate judges simply depending on whether anyone died while in office, and the risks would be marginally smaller for political parties appointing a justice, potentially causing presidents and Congress to agree on nominations further. One common proposal among political observers and academics is to implement an 18-year term limit, but opponents note that the precise initiative increases the potential that a single president might potentially nominate the bulk of the judges to the court at any stage.