An opposing view was exhibited by Brutus in Anti-Federalist 78-79:
"There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself."
The question then is, should judges serve for life? Is it important for judges to be above the political wrangling that takes place in the other branches of government? Or should they be held accountable on a periodic basis? Should there be a certain term of office for judges? Or would this subject the judiciary to too much political pressure?
I don’t think that judges should serve for life. Yes, judges are selected on purpose and with expectations, but there is the chance of having a dishonest judge. Judges might ignore evidence or change the rules to how they want them if they are above other branches of government. They should be held accountable at times. I don’t think that there would be too much political pressure if there was a certain term of office for judges.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what the answer is, yet life terms is not the amswer. That gives them no incentive to put any effort into the important job that they have and tey run the irsk of becoming stagnant. I feel that there should be a length with the possiblity of reaapointment. I have been thinking about this subject since I heard a story/discussion on NPR the other day discussing rather Stevens will retire in June or not. Just the fact that he may plan his retirement so that Obama has the opportunity to appoint a judge (whcih I thin would be a fine idea) is an example of how a judge should not be in for life....it gives them to much power.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe service for life is the right approach. If the judges felt pressure to perform for fear of loosing their job, they could not do the job we need to them do. Having a panel of judges allows for checks and balances within it self. They are appointed based in part on their skill, experience, and temperment, and decisions are made as a group, no one judge has more power than the other. Also, their experience gives them the ability to make decisions based on knowledge of our Constitution and the laws that have developed from that.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe service for life is the right approach. If the judges felt pressure to perform for fear of loosing their job, they could not do the job we need to them do. Having a panel of judges allows for checks and balances within it self. They are appointed based in part on their skill, experience, and temperment, and decisions are made as a group, no one judge has more power than the other. Also, their experience gives them the ability to make decisions based on knowledge of our Constitution and the laws that have developed from that.
ReplyDelete(Jonathan Kelly) I strongly believe that the system that is used now with judges is very much fitting. They are not put into that position of power overnight, they have to prove themselves and show that they deserve it. By that time if the person running to be a federal judge was a bad apple people owuld have already seen it. If we let politics innertwine with the judges it would affect their judgement in fear of their jobs... thus corrupting the whole judicial system.-Jonathan Kelly
ReplyDeleteI think the way the system is now is effective. Judges serving for life make it where judges can focus on their work instead of if people are satisfied with their decisions in order to keep their job. Judges are not there to enforce the law how someone wants it to be but instead to enforce what the law states. If a judge was not meant for the job he or she would have not made it through the process of obtaining the position. -Brianna Blevins
ReplyDeleteI feel that life terms are to long for supreme court judges. I think they should only serve 30 or 40 year terms, since most of them when elected are the age of 50 or older, therefore if they have a 30 year term, they would be at least 80 at the end of the term. I feel at this age most people can not make rational decisions.
ReplyDelete15 year appointments with no reappointment could be a good thing. They serve their 15 years and retire. This gives the court a chance to "update" along with the citizenry. Although lifetime appointments probably make the court more stable.
ReplyDeleteFor me, personally... as long as they are upholding the Constitution, they should serve. Once they start changing phrases, then they should be impeached.
And in case anyone wants an example of the federal courts changing phrases in our Constitution... I refer you to the fifth amendment "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In 1936, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that slum clearance is a public use. This was in New York City Housing Authority v Muller, and was talking about a public housing area. The projects, although public housing, could only be used by the individuals that lived there. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano in "Constitutional Chaos", "The court stated that the elimination of this slum area was a 'public purpose' and that ist was constitutionally sufficient that the public benefited from this taking of private land."
So essentially, the New York Court of Appeals changed the fifth amendment to read "public benefit" instead of "public use."
This case started things down a slippery slope that is almost impossible to stop. After that decision, again in the New York Court of Appeals, the government was allowed to condemn 6.3 acres of private land. They argued that it was a slum clearance, yet only 2 percent of this land was actually a slum. This project stole land from one private person and gave it to another private person with no compensation whatsoever.
When these kinds of decisions are made, it's time for the judges to enjoy retirement.
I believe that the judges should be allowed to serve for life for several reasons. First, if we were to allow judges to be evaluated after a ten year term, who would make the evaluation to determine what kind of job a judge has done and whether that judge would leave his seat? Somebody or some group would have to set the standards by which a judge would be evaluated. Secondly, the life term eliminates the influence of a political party or legislative branch becoming involved in the progress or lack of progress in that judge's tenure.
ReplyDelete-Jennifer