Supreme Court justices in the US are appointed for life, but some argue for fixed terms due to longer lifespans and democratic considerations. The Court’s decisions are final and affect other branches of government. Proponents of life terms argue it protects against political influence and allows for reconsideration of past decisions.
According to the Constitution, justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are appointed to the court for life. The Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices. The Chief Justice is the highest judicial official in the federal government and serves as a judge in presidential impeachments. There have been calls in recent years to change life appointments to the Court to a fixed term of years.
Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution gives the United States judiciary to a Supreme Court and any lower federal court established by Congress. Judges of both the supreme and lower courts hold their offices “for good conduct.” The term for Supreme Court justices ends only upon death, resignation, retirement, or impeachment. Associate justices are appointed by the president and confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the United States Senate.
The decisions of the Supreme Court are the final law of the land. The Court’s rulings may also affect the powers of other branches of the federal government and state governments. The life term for Supreme Court justices was intended to protect them from outside political influence of any kind.
Many jurists and commentators have started calling for changing the life span of Supreme Court justices to a fixed period of years. They argue that the term for life meant something very different in 18th-century America. Due to advances in medicine and health care, judges are serving much longer terms than the framers of the Constitution would have anticipated. There are also democratic and practical considerations in favor of limited terms.
With a lifetime term for Supreme Court justices, there’s always the possibility that they’ll serve longer than they otherwise might in order to maintain the status quo in approaches to highly nuanced politico-legal issues, such as the abortion. It is also argued that the lifetime term negatively affects the democratic process by reducing the opportunities for new presidential nominations. Because presidential terms are limited, one president may nominate the Court multiple times, another may have no nominations.
Other proponents of fixed time limits for judges argue that “during good behavior” takes into account issues such as physical or mental infirmity and other consequences of advancing age. The Supreme Court has the power to regulate its caseload and can simply accept fewer cases for decision. There is also the possibility that Court members become intellectually stagnant or unresponsive to political and cultural changes in the country.
Proponents of the life term for Supreme Court justices argue that it is precisely in the Constitution that justices are not to decide cases based on political passions or the expectations of the day. The lifetime term also gives the Court the opportunity to see and consider the fundamental changes taking place in society and to rethink past decisions. They also argue that the life term would require an unnecessary constitutional amendment. Fixed deadlines could also create the possibility of deadlines being made ever shorter, allowing lawmakers to replace judges more quickly for political ends.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
