Life Tenure in the Judiciary - Annotated Bibliography Example

LIFETIME TENURE OF U.S. JUDGES Introduction Lifetime tenure is a term of office that lasts for the officeholders lifetime unless he/she is removed from office under certain circumstances such death, impeachment and conviction by Congress, or through voluntary retirement or resignation. This paper will attempt to discuss the subject of life tenure of U.S. judges, particularly the Supreme Court Justices, and present arguments for and against the retention of such tenure. A conclusion will be developed that will help the reader form their own judgment. Lifetime tenure has seldom been an issue inasmuch as it is taken for granted by the average American citizen, being provided for in Article III, Section of the U.S. Constitution. It has been believed that the provision would insulate justices from politics and to safeguard the Court from undue influence from outside interests. The Federalist papers gives us an insight into the rationale behind this concept. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that judges should remain in office "as long as they exhibit good behavior." Before the U.S. Constitution was adopted, he wrote in 1788, that "the standard of good behavior . . . is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government." He further said that "in a republic it is no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." ( Federalist papers, cited in Rethinking life tenure for judges). With the inclusion of life tenure in the Constitution, the presumption is that judges can make independent court decisions, some of which can be unpopular. They do not have to worry about losing office as a consequence of unpopular decisions. The term "good behavior" has never been authoritatively defined as it pertains to the conduct of judges. Some have criticized some unpopular decisions and the rationales behind them as proof of "bad" behavior, but this does not hold true where good behavior is described as "a favorable manner of conducting oneself." If decisions unpalatable to some individuals, or even the majority, are used as a basis of impeachment by Congress, the judiciary would become politicized and subject to the whims of the majority. (See Good Behavior). Arguments in favor In addition to the classical persuasive arguments of Hamilton, people who are in favor of the status quo in the judicial branch also cite the view that it is independent judges who can guard the Constitution as well as the rights of individuals. The Supreme Court upholds the Constitution and defends it against ideas that endanger the social order. If the people no longer finds the Constitution acceptable, however, they can propose to amend it through their representatives.(See U.S. History -Federalist Papers). Argument against. Some put forth the argument that the Supreme Court is not accountable because Justices are not required to stand for election while serving during good behavior. Also, impeachment is difficult to carry out, with only one Justice in U.S. history having been impeached, and none ever been removed. Despite the claims to the contrary, it is argued the Supreme Court is actually not immune from external influence, being subject to appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate (a political process). Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against life tenure is advanced by Larry Sabato when he said that the "insularity of life tenure, combined with appointment of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than the views of the current day." Old judges are always behind the times, according to another critic. There have also been others critical of judges remaining in service despite deteriorating health or mental functioning. A proposed change of the Constitution would put term limits to the tenure of judges, or mandatory retirement age as in the civil service. Alternatives to lifetime tenure. One may cite alternatives that have been proposed so far, as follows. a. A term limit of about 15 years . This is supposed to remove the possibility of judges whose mental and intellectual functioning has deteriorated and are no longer able to serve with competence. A feature proposed to be added is that if the judge still exhibits mental competence, a congressional committee will decide to give a limited extension. An objection to this proposal is that the process becomes political when Congress members instead look into the judges judicial or ideological leanings and use this information as basis for the judgment of incompetence. They may not adhere to professional understanding of what constitutes a decline in mental faculties or dementia. Aside from demeaning the judiciary and its members, this process can become quite political. b. Renewal of terms subject to regular or periodic review. This is intended to make the judges alert about their roles and performance results. However, it has been argued that the judge might in fact be "auditioning" before the incumbent President, which contradicts the dictum that judges should be above all politics. Those in favor of this proposal also say that a Congressional committee that is bi-partisan would guard against the influence of politics. Conclusion. While most Americans hardly concern themselves with this issue, it seems that many are for the status quo. The arguments of Alexander Hamilton have not been disproved convincingly. Except at the initial stage when they are appointed by the Chief Executive and subject to Senate confirmation, the Supreme Court Justices should stay insulated from all external influences that can sway their decisions in a manner not consistent with justice and fairness for the national constituency. The lifetime tenure provision, together with the one on their compensation not being diminished during their tenure, not to mention the prestige of the position, will tend to attract the brightest lawyers of the country. If a Justice shows signs of deteriorating health or is adjudged by a medical professional as no longer capable of discharging his duties competently, the option to retire is always available. The burden of the job may be too much for him, and the possibility of public ridicule for judicial errors attributable to his medical condition would perhaps lead him and his relatives to opt for the retirement option. Works Cited Good behavior, Political spectrum. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://politicalspectrum.blogspot.com/2005/04/good-behaviour.html Federalist No. 78. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Federalist_No._78 Rethinking Life Tenure for Judges. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/life_tenure_judges.html Read More