}There are proposals to limit terms and/or ages for Supreme Court justices. Some argue that all justices be appointed for 15 years, with a cap on age 75 and a grandfather (so to speak) clause for the present members of the court. Others argue for 18 years with no age limit. Some scholars argue the framers never intended for lifetime appointments. Others argue that we are meant to evolve as a democracy so change for the sake of innovation is good. Certainly, there are other ideas as well.
Write a well-reasoned 300 word response to the concept of term limits for justices, explaining why you support or oppose it. Include specific research to support your argument, citing specific reasoning presented by specific individuals. Please rely on hard news and/or scholarly sources only. }Respond to the posts of two classmates with an academically appropriate response. Please cite at least two sources within your initial response. You may use any style, MLA, APA, or Chicago, as long as it is correct.
17 Comments
Courtney Dunton
3/25/2019 10:51:52 am
There should be a limit to terms for the Supreme Court justices in the United States, not age but a limit on the terms. Most say that there should be term limits and an age limit, but a term limit would be successful enough for a change. The Constitution of United States of America states “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” So, the Constitution states nothing about the limit terms or a certain age where you have to retire as justice. Term limits for the court are much needed for several reasons, the most important being “getting burned out from it.” One issue some people may see is that it would take a constitutional amendment. This doesn’t seem as a big deal to others, since the United States has amended the Constitution 27 times already, also known as once every nine years. This meaning that, “We are overdue for at least one more amendment” (Leonhardt, David). But, then again, statistics show that highly qualified people ages 50-60 are largely ignored solely due to the age of entry into the system. It is still believable limiting the terms would be more efficient though. One of the best ways to complete this is a 18 year term limit. The justices of the United States today “serve longer on average than at any point in American history” (“Term Limits”). The Constitution was written back when life expectancy was much less than how it is today, so now the justices in their seat are serving longer than most were alive. Also, nominations for the Supreme Court has turned “into a political circus” (“Term Limits”). Instead of president’s looking for a candidate who has the best experience in a courtroom, the party in charge is basically scrambling to find the youngest, but still with background. With this, and any change there will be problems to work out and improve, especially such a large transition from the current to a new system, but the candidates in the current would be grandfathered in. Meaning, even if they have served 20 + terms they’d be allowed, but the new candidates would start off with the new term laws. This new law would also “need a mechanism to prevent the opposing party in the Senate from denying a president a justice” (Leonhardt, David). But, all of this would be able to be conquered in the future.
Reply
McKay Shockley
3/25/2019 12:59:27 pm
I agree with you Courtney, all of this makes great sense and I think term limits on the Supreme Court would be a great change for the way the Court works.
Reply
Nathan Crumb
3/26/2019 09:25:22 pm
I agree with this fully because I support the 18 year term limit and i believe that it would run the courts smoother and be good for the evolving society that we live in today because different times require different decisions.
Reply
McKay Shockley
3/25/2019 12:57:04 pm
The Supreme Court should have term limits. There are a couple of reasons why it might be beneficial. Because the United States Supreme Court does not have term limits, they have not respected the will of the people, appointments and confirmations of justices have turned into political battles, the Court has become less responsive and predictable, and that we don’t have a change of ideology within the Court. First off, the system “does not respect the will of the people” (Leonhardt). It is determined by elections throughout the years and it’s based on those elections and how long the justices live. When Jimmy Carter was president, he couldn’t make one nomination because no justice died or retired during his presidency. Appointments of justices and their confirmations have turned into political battles; it’s why the lack of a Merrick Garland process angered so many people, and the Kavanaugh confirmation felt momentus. Political scientist Lee Drutman said that “it makes the stakes too high” (Leonhardt). Aging justices should also not have to cling to their jobs past the point where there not able to, which has been a problem in the past. Putting term limits on the Supreme Court justices would make the entire system more responsible and predictable. This would make the whole confirmation process a more urgent matter. It could possibly lessen the chance of an unexpected departure, like the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia. No term limits also mean that justices would, over time, lose touch with the world outside of the Court. In 1983, John Roberts said that “setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence” (Drutman). Lastly, not having set term limits on Supreme Court justices would yield the possibility of having new sets on ideology between the justices. Some justices have been on the Supreme Court for decades, thus having the same ideology and the Court not being able to have a complete change of it; it’s only a change when one of the judges retires, dies, or gets impeached.
Reply
Courtney Dunton
3/25/2019 01:04:43 pm
I agree with you that the Supreme Court needs limits. In my research I found that most people said an 18 year term limit would be most beneficial, but 15 years is better than no limit. With the quote you have from John Roberts stating that 15 years would ensure that they wouldn't lose all touch with reality was the same reason I believe their should be a limit. Also, being in this line of business for as long as they want may "burn them out" to the point they no longer have time for family, etc. and get bored with their work.
Reply
Nathan Crumb
3/26/2019 09:28:27 pm
I agree with this and would just like to add that the mental health of a person starts to deteriorate usually around the age of sixty and will start to affect their decision making and judgement toward things so this is why it is so important to me to have longer term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reply
Anna Pittman
3/26/2019 09:33:46 pm
I agree with you, every president should be able to appoint a justice. It seems like now a days, presidents only appoint justices if someone dies.
Nathan Crumb
3/26/2019 09:20:53 pm
There should be term limits set on Supreme Court Justices because they handle the most important cases in the country and they need to be in the right state of mind when deciding on some of the most important cases. Almost all countries around the world have term limits on these positions. The eighteen year term limit is favored by many people such as Norm Ornstein and Law Professor, Erwin Chemerinsky. Ornstein likes the concept of a eighteen year term limit because the justices could make decisions that relate more to the current society and that the competitors for the job could ease off a bit since they will have a chance every 18 years. Professor Erwin believes it is a good idea as he says “Eighteen years is long enough to allow a justice to master the job, but not so long as to risk creating a court that reflects political choices from decades earlier”. The Constitution was written when life expectancy was in a person’s 50’s. Thus causing no need for term limits to be added back then because once they were eligible for the job, they were most likely in their 40’s. Also, when people are in their forties to sixties, their intellectual levels are peaked, but once they get past 60, their intellectual abilities start to deteriorate. There have been instances where supreme court justices have been deciding cases when their families have voiced their concerns about their mental health and the ability to do their job with the right state of mind. Overall, the judicial system would become much more efficient with a younger, quicker working and decision making team on the Supreme Court and i would have to agree with a 18 year term limit because it is a proportionate amount of time to grasp the skills of the job and also be mentally stable to do so.
Reply
Anna Pittman
3/26/2019 09:31:18 pm
I agree with you Nathan, having term limits would make the judicial system much more efficient because younger faces would become justices.
Reply
McKay Shockley
3/27/2019 08:19:24 am
I agree with you Nathan. The 18 year term limits do sound like a good idea. It would let them focus on the problems of the current society and it would help them focus more in general.
Reply
Courtney Dunton
3/27/2019 08:26:10 am
I agree with you, Nathan. I also believe that they need to be in the right state of mind which deciding these cases. Making an amendment to the Constitution would not be a huge deal since it is done every 9 years roughly.
Reply
Anna Pittman
3/26/2019 09:30:03 pm
The Supreme Court should have a term limit on how long the justices can serve. This has been a long standing debate and many people have different views on if there should be term limits or not. Many people believe that there should be term limits of 15 years, or there should be an age limit. Senator John Kennedy said “I would sure love to have the debate, I do not know exactly how I would come down, but it is certainly worth talking about.” The United States is a different world than the Framers envisioned it would be. In order to change the regulation on term limits, the Constitution would need to be changed which would take a two-thirds majority vote from the House and Senate and three-fourths majority for states to ratify. Some scholars argue that the Framers never imagined justices would serve for a lifetime. Some people say that democrats should add four justices to the nine-member court if they win the White House and control of Congress in 2020. Seventy-eight percent of Americans agree with putting term limits for Justices. Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed by Obama, says she is happy with life tenure, but she did not dismiss proposals to set long-term limits. In 2016, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, said setting term limits would make life a lot easier. Breyer says that eighteen or twenty years would be good, but people should not set term limits so short that the Justices are already thinking about their next job when they are appointed. A poll from Fix the Court showed that fifty-eight percent of Americans say the Supreme Court confirmation process is broken. Another poll says that the majority of Americans agree that there should be a term limit or a retirement age for justices.
Reply
Adam Buell
4/25/2019 01:46:43 pm
There are many reasons for why or why not there should be term limits for Supreme Court Justices. However, in a formulated opinion, term limits should not be introduced for Supreme Court Justices in the future. There are many reasons for why there should not be an age or term limit The first reason is for the overall continuity of the Supreme Court. If a term and age limit was introduced, members of the Supreme Court, especially younger members such as Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch would have to work with an unknown number of Justices. Also, another reason for this is to keep away a debate about whom the Chief Justice should be, a new and untested member who would leave the bench in 15 years, or a more experienced member who is on the bench for life. The second reason for why there should not be a term limit is the tradition in which it would take away the pride and tradition away for the Supreme Court and Justices that serve on it, and it would become more of an elected role, rather than a prestigious, lifelong role. Another reason is for the age restriction, which would not only hurt those on the Supreme Court, but would affect other judge spots, with arguments made about how if the Supreme Court Justices have term limits, then every other Judge in the United States should also have a term or age limits.
Reply
Zizhe Liu
5/15/2019 05:53:24 pm
Term limits for judges in the United States.
Reply
Adam Buell
5/20/2019 08:11:35 pm
There are many reasons for why or why not there should be term limits for Supreme Court Justices. However, in a formulated opinion, term limits should not be introduced for Supreme Court Justices in the future. There are many reasons for why there should not be an age or term limit The first reason is for the overall continuity of the Supreme Court. If a term and age limit was introduced, members of the Supreme Court, especially younger members such as Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch would have to work with an unknown number of Justices. Also, another reason for this is to keep away a debate about whom the Chief Justice should be, a new and untested member who would leave the bench in 15 years, or a more experienced member who is on the bench for life. The second reason for why there should not be a term limit is the tradition in which it would take away the pride and tradition away for the Supreme Court and Justices that serve on it, and it would become more of an elected role, rather than a prestigious, lifelong role. Another reason is for the age restriction, which would not only hurt those on the Supreme Court, but would affect other judge spots, with arguments made about how if the Supreme Court Justices have term limits, then every other Judge in the United States should also have a term or age limits.
Reply
I support the term limit. First of all, I understand that there is a disadvantage in understanding the term limit. The advantage is that it is to let more talents have the opportunity to compete. At the same time, there is a situation in which the introduction of the New Deal method can allow more people to have more opportunities to express their demands, thus reflecting the democratic politics. The downside is that it may make certain policies difficult to coherent, making the frontline bill and the masses at a loss. There is also a situation in which it is impossible to achieve major development goals, because large-scale development often requires the storage of time and resources. In the face of fierce competition of talents, the ideas of various people collide with each other, and various contradictions blend with each other. The big situation has become complicated and uncontrollable. Part of the time and resources may be lost. I support the 18-year term of office. Because, 8 years to observe and summarize, 10 years to achieve full implementation and change. Update without updating. Constantly check and check. Such a regulatory approach will speed up the work, but it can produce highly effective political results. This kind of decision-making power can be better implemented in the new thinking of rapid change.The potential consequences of a stable replacement provide term limits' supporters with an additional argument: in theory, term limits would end socially irrelevant rulings and politically motivated retirements, and increase the possibility of a court with a range of ideologies and new perspectives.The current justice also agrees with this approach.
Reply
doris
5/22/2019 11:09:29 am
https://thetylt.com/politics/supreme-court-justices-term-limits
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2019
Categories |