The layout of the United States federal court

According to Article III of the country’s law

The structure of the federal court in the United States is specified. Even though the court is one of the three branches of government, Article III is remarkably condensed. Indeed, it could be described as ambiguous, particularly when it comes to the attire of designated judicial officials. The article states that Supreme Court judges and judges of lower courts should hold their positions for as long as they uphold the expected standards of conduct for their positions and should continue to receive their services and compensation, which should not be decreased during their terms in office. By this, the constitution does not place a limit to the number of years these judicial officials should serve. Pros of lifetime appointments

One key advantage of having a lifetime appointment

is that it provides continuity in the legal system. A key responsibility of the judicial system is to enforce the law and interpreted the constitution. As such, a lifetime tenure decelerates the rate of legal change in the country since a gradual shift in the composition of the Supreme Court ensures that changes are adopted gradually given the fact that it is rare for Justices to overturn decisions made in previous settings. Evoking the lifetime tenure would mean a flip-flopping of precedence every time a new regime takes office. This would not only undermine the legitimacy of the judicial system, but also it would cause significant uncertainty in the nation’s economy (Stras, 2007). Secondly, assuring lifetime tenures to Justices will reduce the risk of biased judgments based on future political or financial ambitions. In that, if justices are appointed at a young age, it is highly probable that they would wish to prolong their careers after the completion of their terms. Given the level of influence by the political environment, this would increase the likelihood of Justices passing judgment that would shape a friendly environment for their future ambitions (Stras, 2007). Lastly, having lifelong tenure ensures the judiciary will keep the government in check. In a situation where justices frequently reelected or appointed, the balance of power will most likely be disrupted. Power would either fall on the side of the executive given that the president has the responsibility of appointing Justices or the legislature which approves such appointments. Either way, the judiciary will lose its power as an oversight institution.

Cons of lifetime appointments.

A principal disadvantage of having lifetime tenures

is that it allows politics to play a part in the interpretation of the constitution.

Recent years have brought out a tendency among Justices to retire or resign from office when a like-minded regime is in power (Calabresi & Lindgren, 2005). This ensures that the person appointed to replace them holds similar political leanings. Such practices fundamentally undermine the independence of the Judiciary, its responsibilities as an oversight institution, and the principles of the Constitution. Secondly, the founders of the nation believed, an unchecked power tends to develop arrogance and hubris among those would wield it. Having lifetime tenures promotes political hubris among justices which inhibit their ability to decipher the spirit of the Constitution (Calabresi & Lindgren, 2005). Research shows that these trends are present in the current set up of the judiciary and longer their tenure continues the more corrupted the system will become. Another disadvantage of having a lifelong mandate is that it reduces the ability of Justices to perfume their duties, especially at old age (Tailor, 2005). Apart from becoming less objective and more ideological, aging Justices grow less productive. As much as their remain in the limits of “good behavior,” these Justices, as a result of political posturing, stay in office long past their ability to serve in an increasingly demanding environment.

My position in the matter

is that there should be a limit on the number of years Supreme Court Justices remain in office. The constitution created the Judiciary as an independent entity that would help in maintaining the checks and balances in all three arms of government. Over the years, and primarily as a result of having lifetime tenures in office, the judicial system has become politicized and is slowing becoming a political tool for party politics. If the aim of having lifelong tenures is to marinating the independence of the institution, then it has significantly failed and should be reviewed to limit the tenures of Justices same as when it comes to the Presidency or Congress.

References

Calabresi, S. G., & Lindgren, J. (2005). The limits for Supreme Court: Life tenure reconsidered. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 29(3), 769-877.

Stras, D. (2007). Life tenure, term limits, and Supreme Court Justices. Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/09/life-tenure-term-limits-and-supreme-court-justices/

Tailor, S. (2005). Life tenure is too long for Supreme Court Justices. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/life-tenure-is-too-long-for-supreme-court-justices/304134/

Word Count: 803