More handpicked essays just for you.
The power of american judiciary as a branch of the government
The art of persuasion essay
The art of persuasion essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States judicial system has the least written about it in the constitution out of all of the three branches, with only two sections outlining the structure of the entire system. This means that much of the judicial branch's power has come from precedents over time and legislation from Congress, leaving the branch far from perfect. Sadly one of the biggest flaws of the court system comes from Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution, which says that federal judges serve for life while on good behavior. Lifetime tenure for federal judges must be replaced with fixed terms in order ensure the courts stability and functionality. The problems that lifetime tenure causes according to Sabato are numerous as well as disastrous. The first …show more content…
Twenty five years is enough time for children to become adults, which means that justices who serve for that long represent a completely different generations ideology. How can nine people from a completely different time decide the law for an entire country that has very different views of right and wrong. Sabato’s solution for these problems is straightforward and effective is to abolish lifetime tenure completely and replace it with a 15 year fixed term. This term would apply to all federal judges in every level, with judges in district courts (which do not decide constitutionality of law) able to apply to congress for a five year extension. This solution has many benefits, the first of which being that presidents will no longer feel pressure to nominate younger judges who would be able to serve for more than twenty years. The second benefit is that it will ensure that Judges will only preside over the generation that shares their ideals. Sabatos idea of ending lifetime tenure is supported by …show more content…
Even though Sabato’s claim that presidents are appointing younger inexperienced judges to the Supreme Court appears to be incorrect, the remaining fact that the tenure length of judges is increasing is more than enough to prove the need for fixed terms for judges. The table clearly proves Sabatos idea that after 1970 the average tenure length for judges has increased, while it might not as drastic as 25 years, 20 years is still long enough to question if justices can preside over court to the best of their ability for so long. If the average appointment age is 57 and the average tenure length is 19 years then that means the average judge leaves the court at age 76. This is disturbing because the National Institute of Health, National Center for Biotechnology Information, and US National Library of Medicine all say that most decline in cognitive functionality happens after sixty. Meaning justices that were appointed at age 57 and decide to stay on the bench for 25 years are just ticking timebombs, waiting to lose all sense of reason and consequence while in the middle of a case. The table also proves Sabatos other point about judges being too far out of reach from the public's opinion when the average justice serves for 20 years. If twenty years marks the beginning of a new generation and a new set of norms and standards
The strategic model acknowledges that judges seek to achieve policy goals, but it also acknowledges that they are subject to certain restrictions in doing so. Since they cannot act accordingly to preference, they must act strategically to achieve their goals given by the restrictions. It argues that like politicians, justices make their decisions based off other’s decisions or make their decisions while trying to determine how another person will react from it. This decision style says justices would base their decisions on the influence of other justices.
... eye. While Toobin gave me great insight to the people who make up the Supreme Court, this book has become dated in some aspects. Stevens and Souter no longer are a part of the Supreme Court. As this book shows, each individual Justice makes up the personality of Supreme Court, which is now sightly different, without Justices Stevens and Souter. The nine justices in the book served together longer than any other group of Justices. Toobin describes the how each of the Justices got appointed to the Supreme court, including the failed nominations that ultimately brought each of the Justices to the Supreme court. The Supreme Court shapes our country in ways that no other branch of government can, because they are appointed for life. Ultimately, nominating a Supreme Court Justics, is one of the most far reaching and lasting way a president can shape our nation.
Larry J. Sabato offered some good notions as to what should be revised in the Constitution. Some of his thoughts were very well thought out, and helped me think much more about how the government should be amended. I agreed with essentially every idea he presented, except holding another Constitutional Convention—that proposal doesn’t seem necessary, since most of ideas could be implemented using the “elastic clause” (which Congress so frequently uses). Some more proposals that I did not agree with were expanding the senate to 136 members to add more representation, allowing non-U.S. citizens to run for president after they have lived in the states for 20 years, expanding the Supreme Court from nine to twelve members, and finally, giving states with a higher population more Electoral College electors. Those are just some of his thoughts that I had a disagreement with, but mostly I agreed with his ideas.
Henson, J. (Interviewer) & Elkins, Z. (Interviewee). (2008). The Bases of Longevity in the U.S. Constitution [Interview video file].
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
Larry Sabato author of “A More Perfect Constitution” implies the United States Constitution could use some revision. Written over two hundred years ago, I do not think this concept is astonishing. I believe the founding father were aware of potential flaws, allowing for amendments or changes. Sabato book proposes some changes and the “calling for a twenty-first-century constitutional convention.” This book review will look at four of Sabato suggestions; reforming the Senate, balancing the budget, a six-year presidential term, and the Electoral College. These four recommendations were of greatest interest and intrigue. Although I do agree with all his ideas, I do feel there is more to improvement in our constitution and commend his efforts is awakening the American people to a need for reform.
Life tenure creates at least three problems. First, it allows bad judges to stay on the bench for an indefinite period of time. Second, life tenure allows all judges, including those judges who were very good at what they did, to stay on the bench even after they are long past doing their best work. Third and finally, life tenure allows justices to “rig the system”, as their productivity and effectiveness drastically decrease, while they wait for a president to nominate their successor who has similar viewpoints to theirs (Lazarus
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan statewide elections. Mid-term vacancices are filled by appointment. State law requires that nominees are state residents and have practiced law for a minimum of seven years.
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
Many judges, whether appointed or elected, tend to serve for life. Often times, once they are in place, then it is very difficult to remove them. The advantage of having judges that are older is for their experience and wisdom. These judges are typically able to make sound judgments. They have obtained a degree of respect from their community and judicial colleagues. If a judge is able to maintain a sound mind and is physically fit to stay on the bench, then there should not be a cause of concern. However, with the aging process, the human body begins to decline. Unfortunately, sound judgment and memory begins to diminish. The body begins to weaken and it becomes increasingly difficult for a judge to keep up with the demand for the job. Often time than not, the judge is the one who decides when he should step down. If he a defiant person, then that decision will be a difficult one for him to make even though his stepping down would be for the betterment of all people. Most judges are able to continue serving even into advanced ages. As long as they are capable, then they should continue to do
In 1787 Article three of the constitution created the Supreme Court, but not until 1789 was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life. This court serves as the “supreme law of the land”, it has the power to determine if state or federal laws are in conflict with how the Court interprets the constitution.
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to allow a multitude of additional benefits.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012