SUPREME COURT
Name of the student
Name of the instructor
Class
Date
The constitution is a major source of the federal judiciary. As provided in Article III of the US constitution, the US’ judicial power shall always be vested in a single Supreme Court, in which other inferior Courts like the Congress may sometimes ordain and establish. Therefore, even though the Constitution sets up the Supreme Court, it allows Congress to decide on the manner to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the 1789 Judiciary Act. The Act established a Supreme Court comprising six judges. The Act also formed the lower federal court system. However, over the years, the different Congress’ acts have changed the Supreme Court’s number of justices. They have sometimes altered these numbers from as low as five and up to a maximum of 10 justices.
Today, the US Court comprises of one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the government’s constitutional system. First, as the Supreme Court is the highest, it becomes the last resort for anybody looking for justice in the land. Secondly, it ensures that every branch of government works under the legal limits of its power. Third, the Supreme Court protects liberties and civil rights by destroying laws that infringe the constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court puts on democratic governments by ensuring the popular majorities cannot come up with laws that harm unpopular minorities. Thus, it means that the Supreme Court is vital in various ways and that why any action taken has first to go through thorough investigations to avoid tampering with this crucial body. For this reason, I prefer having the Supreme Court remain as it is to minimize the chances of interfering with its processes.
In the US, the Supreme Court justices serve to a life long tenure. That means they mostly remain in office until one dies or one decides to resign. For that reason, many judges have been serving even past 70 years, which is past retiring age for other workers. It has been no new thing to find sitting presidents appoint justices who are 70 or even 80 years to serve the country’s Supreme Court. Many justices have had died while serving in the high court, meaning they serve up to their old ages when one expects them to have retired from work. The death of Ruth Bader confirms the cases of old justices serving who sometimes die while serving. Therefore, it is the view of some people that the judges need to have an age limit to ensure that they don’t cause problems, especially ones noticed after they die while serving. Some of the problems include vacant offices where sometimes it becomes hard to fill them. However, I prefer the life long term tenure of these judges, meaning that everything remains as it is. Thus, I prefer such a system to enhance the Supreme Court’s independence in which its judges are not subject to competition for power as in legislative seats. Thus, with a system that doesn’t limit judges’ time in office, it means that they can concentrate on work and deliver. It is also important to note that the Supreme Court’s seats are vital seats with major roles for the nation, so it is advantageous if there are no interferences.
According to John Hessin Clarke’s case on the appointments for Supreme Courts in the presidential election, it is evident of many problems that lock the Supreme Court services at such moments. Such problems emanate from the fight for power in which new leaders or competing leaders may not agree on the person to take on the vacant office. The death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 was one instance of a case that brought problems. After his death, it was all like competition to replace the seat. Thus, the Republicans made it clear that they would not consider any nominee that President Barack Obama had proposed (Entin, 30-57). That was clear after the GOP-controlled Senate refused to consider Obama’s nominee Justice Merrick B Garland. The action provoked a heated debate, and the vacancy remained open until President Donald Trump appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Therefore, the same problem is likely to ensue as a similar situation faces the US after the death of Justice Ruth Ginsburg in an election year, in which the president taking office is new. Ruth was also old, and as some people think, there should be a limit on the age for justices to avoid problems that arise, especially after some justices’ deaths. According to some people, failing to limit age for justices leads them to serve even in their twilight years when death may also be near. According to Russell, it is only in America that there is the practice of allowing Supreme judges to serve for a life-long duration. Other nations have their set age limits (Hughes). Therefore that increases the chances of facing problems that occurred after the death of Justice Scalia or one expected to occur now that Justice Ruth has died and been an election year. However, I refute such an argument because any other Justice may die and leave the nation under problems. Therefore, I stick to the idea that justices should have a life-long tenure. That is to ensure that they can serve long as far as they live to reduce now and then interferences that may be caused by retirements and other factors.
According to Stanford, a term life-term limit allows interference of politics in judicial matters. With the sudden death of a judge, especially in the election year, that might see the appointments of another justice sometimes only after the election. That is because there is a likelihood of the president-elect to wait until being sworn and then choose those who belong to his/her political camp. Therefore, that discloses some of the problems that may face the role of Supreme Courts because such judges appointed by some presidents might find themselves not working according to the constitution but according to the desires of the presidents who appointed them (Costello, 1153)ly. Thus, according to Stanford, limiting Justices’ term limit is not crucial for the nation’s development.
Concerning the number of justices, the US Constitution grants Congress the power to decide the number of justices to serve in the Supreme Court. The number may range from as low as five justices to ten. Thus, it will depend on the ruling government to decide on the number they decide. Also, there are already a set number of Supreme Court justices, which may be prone to changes if the leading government is politically oriented. There are reasons why changing the High Court Judge numbers may be important, and some other times not important. For instance, increasing the number of judges may increase the courts’ autonomy, hence reducing interference from politicians and other government organs. However, it may increase the tax-payers tax that they have to remit to ensure the increased number of judges gets paid. Reducing the numbers may also mean increased work per every justice and may not engage in quality service. Therefore, as I realize the problems with increasing or minimizing the number of judges to serve in the High Court, I prefer a no change into which remaining on the set numbers seems advantageous. Moreover, restructuring the Supreme Court may come with other unexpected changes that may inconvenience those working in the judiciary, leading to the delay of crucial services.
Finally, the Supreme Court is an essential body whose role, especially in leadership, is vital. Presidents and other major leaders also recognize the Supreme Court’s role and why the appointments of Supreme Court Justices are important according to the view of such leaders. On the age limit for Supreme Court judges, different people have varied views on the age limit. Some prefer a life-term tenure, whereas others prefer a limited duration. Thus, for every side, there are possible advantages and disadvantages. However, I can prefer a life-term service because of some major benefits of that kind of service by justices. Thus, with life-term service, there is increased autonomy of the judiciary as interference is minimal. That is because the judges will serve until they die or where their health status allows them. That also allows the judiciary to distance itself from influences of politics where after a short term, they need to elect new leaders. Also, having the judiciary’s number or structure unchanged is crucial to reduce unexpected inconveniences that may interfere with the judiciary’s smooth running. Thus, anything currently working for the judiciary should remain as it is, meaning no need for changes.
Work Cited
Entin, Jonathan L. “Supreme Court Appointments in Presidential Election Years: The Case of John Hessin Clarke.” Ohio History 127.1 (2020): 30-57.
Hughes, Charles Evans. The Supreme Court of the United States. Vol. 67. Columbia University Press, 1966.
Costello, Kevin. “Supreme Court Politics and Life Tenure: A Comparative Inquiry.” Hastings LJ 71 (2019): 1153.