Free Essay Sample: Pros and Cons of Lifetime Appointment for U.S Supreme Court Judges

The United States Constitution allows for the lifetime appointment of all Supreme Court judges, but not in literal language. The constitution offers chances for the court judges to hold office if they express good behavior. The constitution does not necessitate the chances of court judges resigning after a given period of service (Marcus, 1996). The purpose of a lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges is to affirm the power and integrity vested on the court justices. It serves to protect the judges against unjustified interference from the executive and legislative spheres. The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges has positive and negative impacts on leadership and mental capabilities. This paper focuses on the pros and cons of the lifetime service of U.S. Supreme Court judges. Additionally, I will provide my ideas on the appointment, whether the judges should be appointed for life or have term limits.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

There are many positive impacts of the lifetime appointment of the Supreme Court judges, resulting from the desire to create balance in the political landscape. The Supreme Court needs to remain steady to enhance democracy and consistency in leadership. Frequent changes of the justices can cause upset and detrimental effects on the country. The judges ensure that laws are followed according to the constitution, and they uphold what they were appointed to perform. It is therefore vital to have a steady court system that is led by long-serving judges because they acquire new skills as they progress in their service (Tripathy, 2016). Lifetime appointment of judges ensures that judges similarly handle similar cases because they have enough experience. If a case that was handled by one judge erupts during the service of a different judge, the judging perspectives would be different, and they lead to different conclusions. The lifetime service by judges reduces any chances of coerciveness and enhances consistency in decision-making. When judges serve for more extended periods, they develop essential skills that eliminate biases and ensure competence in delivering a verdict.

Lifetime appointment of the Supreme Court judges helps to eliminate possible conflicts of interest. When the Supreme Court judges are allowed to serve for short terms, they would be influenced to make unfavorable decisions while in service (Tripathy, 2016). The judges may make decisions that benefit a specific group in order to get a return favor when they leave the office. The main goal of the supreme judges is to interpret the United States Constitution with the least biases. Serving for shorter terms may cause frequent poor decision-making for the benefit of personal interests. Serving for lifetime periods ensures that Supreme Court judges make determinations based on facts rather than emotion. Interpretation of the Constitution requires well-rounded opinions that are guided by the Supreme Court rather than personal beliefs (Tripathy, 2016). Therefore, the best opinions can be developed by judges who have served for longer terms because they have a broader scope of understanding. Serving as a Supreme Court judge requires the ability to handle multiple political issues, some of which may not be accomplished when judges have term limits. It is very challenging to introduce random people who have no idea about the long-lasting cases in the Supreme Court.

The negative implications of lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges include dictatorship, reduced mental capacities, and effects on the political spectrum. Lifetime appointments can make the constitution null and void due to the influence of "wicked" men ("A LIFETIME OF LEADERSHIP", 2009). It is easy for the judges to be bribed or get intimidated to bend towards the wishes of politicians and other influential icons. The Supreme Court judges are appointed by the ruling president, and it is the most critical activity that the United States president can do. However, when the president encounters challenges in the leadership process, there is a high chance of dominating the court and manipulating the judges to gain advantages for personal interests. Supreme Court judges get seriously sick, but they cannot retire because their service is independent. Therefore, it is critical to entrust people with poor health in such a powerful position. Some decisions require the right mindset to ensure that verdicts and other decisions are made from a conscious perspective.

The other issue relates to the mental capacity of the aged Supreme Court judges. The comprehension and conceivability of information diminish with age. The scope of requirements for the Supreme Court judges is acceptable behavior, but the mental capacities overwhelm the latter. Under the United States law, no one is allowed to take a leadership position with underlying mental issues because the chances of poor leadership are high. It is easy for the court's culture to shift towards politicized functions through the lifetime appointment policy. Permanency in office creates a culture of rigidity even when things are heading in the wrong direction. The Supreme Court judges presume that they are overall and their decisions cannot be questioned. Therefore, when the judges make decisions based on the influence of political affiliations, there are high chances of leading the country astray. In most cases, the justices appointed by Democratic presidents are accused of being too liberal in interpreting the law. On the other hand, justices appointed by Republican presidents are presumed to be too conservative.

The United States Supreme Court judges should have a lifetime appointment. The judges' positions in the legal justice system are critical in identifying, analyzing, and determining civil and criminal offenses (Marcus, 1996). Through lifetime appointments, judges are offered freedom from being manipulated by the executive and legislative branches. Therefore, judges are placed above the political limits to interpret the Constitution without fear or favor. In the instance where the minority groups are manipulated by the majoritarian force, the Supreme Court takes the initiative to protect the rights of the minority (Tripathy, 2016). When the idea of term limits is introduced in the appointment of Supreme Court judges, the other government organs will shackle the courts' power. Consequently, the standards that were set by the founding fathers would be negated, and the control powers of the United States nation would be paralyzed. It is hard to imagine a scenario where Congress is allowed to induce control over the independence of judges. In the instance where judges have term limits, the newly appointed judges would be constrained in adopting the standards left by the other retired judges.

The introduction of the limited term for Supreme Court judges would suppress the interests of the nation. However, the citizens must not be allowed to contribute to the selection of the Supreme Court judges. The problem is that many people do not understand the key competencies required for one to become a lawyer (Marcus, 1996). My opinion is that the service of Supreme Court judges should be dictated by the health and ability of the judges. The United States government should ensure that Supreme Court judges serve according to their full potential. The physically challenged judges should be allowed to retire from service because their age and abilities decline beyond the expected levels of competence. Experienced judges offer the best verdicts, and therefore, judges should be allowed to serve as long as they remain consistent. The leadership of one person in an area of expertise provides the best results rather than relying on multiple leaders. The Supreme Court is the most powerful organ in the United States in dealing with criminal issues. Therefore, the Supreme Court judges should be allowed to serve according to their potential until the time they decide to retire willfully.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges allows for unlimited service, provided the judges depict competence and capability. The system of lifetime appointment is handy in enhancing the nation's stability in politics and economy. The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges helps to uphold the independence of the judiciary. When justice is appointed and confirmed to take leadership in the court, there are no options for being beholden to anybody (Tripathy, 2016). Therefore, the judiciary has the mandate to issue rulings according to the law and avoid any political favors. Supreme Court judges should not be elected but rather be appointed because many people do not understand the academic and personal competencies required for a judge. The term of service should not be reduced in any way, so long as the judges can provide reasonable and valid judgments.

References

A LIFETIME OF LEADERSHIP. (2009), 1(2), 3-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.1950.tb01551.x

Marcus, M. (1996). Documenting Judicial History: The Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-18001. Journal Of Supreme Court History, 21(2), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5818.1996.tb00048.x

Tripathy, R. (2016). A Critical Analysis of Appointment of Federal Supreme Court Judges in United States of America. Christ University Law Journal, 5(2), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.9.3