American Government: Report on Supreme Court Justices Tenure Policies

This report provides an analysis of the tenure of Supreme Court justices within the context of American Government, based on the provided readings. It begins with an introduction to the Federalist Society and the concept of lifetime tenure for justices. The discussion section examines the proposal for 18-year term limits, outlining the potential advantages, such as reduced political stakes in nominations and increased democratic accountability, and disadvantages, including the potential for challenges to the interpretation and application of the constitution and the necessity of constitutional amendments. The report critically evaluates the role of political influence in the nomination process, referencing specific cases and figures, and emphasizes the importance of judicial independence and adherence to constitutional principles. The conclusion raises key questions about the constitution, individual rights, and the conduct of justices. The report also includes critiques of the provided readings, pointing out shortcomings in evidence and raising questions about the readings' arguments. The analysis covers the key aspects of American Government, including the roles and responsibilities of the Justices, the importance of the constitution and constitutional rights.

Running head: AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
American Government

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Discussion........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................4
References........................................................................................................................................5
Page 2

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
Introduction
The Federalist Society for Law and Public is a group of conservatives and libertarians, who are
focused on assessing the present condition of the legal matters. It is not an organization, thus
they wish to serve unless they are removed by impeachment. Their tenure happens to be a
lifetime until they willingly resign from their post (Hamilton, 2008). The objective of the essay is
to examine the tenure of Justices.
Discussion
There has been a proposal to establish new policies to make 18 years tenure for service of all
Supreme Court justices. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to this proposal. Term
limits associate with politics because there has been evidence of Supreme Court nominee
selection had political links. In the event of the death of Antonin Scalia, the then Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the US President Barrack Obama appointed Merrick Garland as
the next justice. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stood against the decision and
nullified it. Thus, he was deprived of a hearing because during the election period the President
cannot nominate. Leonard Leo has an important role in the nomination of the judges for a long
period. He played a crucial role in the G.W. Bush administration on nominating John Roberts
and Samuel Alito (Toobin, 2017). If 18 years of a term is applicable, then the stakes can be
lowered for each nomination with a sufficient level of democratic accountability. The successful
implementation of the term can make the appointment process easy, where the President can
nominate two justices per term. The associate Justice has life tenure until they are impeached.
Currently, the nominee’s age is the concerning factor for the appointment of the Justices. There
are also some drawbacks of term determination, which involves that arguments regarding
political pressure on Justice’s will not prevail. Long-term tenures assist in interpreting and
applying the constitution, as they think it would be useful for the people. It is the belief that the
Supreme Court does not engage in politics. Creating a legally approved term limit leads to the
amendment of the Constitution (Ringhand, 2017).
The Justices have considerable powers bestowed on them, thus they might use it for personal
agenda that might affect the citizens. A constitution is a fundamental law that must be
acknowledged by the judges. It was the constitutional right of the President to nominate a justice.
However, it was deemed void, which shows that the principles are put to questions. The Judges
must rule out their decision based on the fundamental laws. If there is a presence of a statute that
contradicts two laws, it should be fixed. This is particularly the situation where the President was
not allowed to exhibit his constitutional right because the power to keep a check on him was
valid as a senator. The principles must be put into consideration when two statutes contradict.
The independent spirit of the judges is essential to provide better judgments and act as guardians
of the constitution (Hamilton, 2008).
In the article Toobin (2017) there has been a statement that “Leo was a close friend of Antonin
Scalia, who instilled in him an affinity for the judicial philosophies known as originalism and
textualism. In rough terms, these approaches hold that judges should interpret the Constitution
according to its original meaning”. In this context, it can be critically evaluated that the judge has
to interpret the constitution in its original meaning and the personal agenda should be put aside.
Page 3

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
It can be further criticized that it was inappropriate for President Obama to be exempted from
exhibiting his constitutional right to nominate an associate justice by the use of some
contradictory statute. The normal public will get a minimal chance to exhibit their constitutional
right. The interpretation of the statute was personal and the nomination was being done for
public benefit but it was manipulated. Manipulation of constitutional rights should be avoided
and loopholes should be addressed. (Toobin, 2017)
Conclusion
The constitution is the fundamental law that has been stated for the welfare of the country and its
people. The primary guardians must abide by the laws to eradicate any unlawful principles. It has
raised certain questions, which are mentioned below:
 Was the constitution formed for the benefit of a few people or all?
 Do individuals have the authority to exercise their constitutional rights?
 Is it necessary for the judges to reflect good behavior to serve a long tenure?
Page 4

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
References
Hamilton 2008, The Federalist Papers: No. 78, Lillian Goldman Law Library, viewed 10 April
2020, <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp>.
Ringhand, L A 2017, Why not limit Neil Gorsuch — and all Supreme Court justices — to 18-
year terms?, The Washington Post, viewed 10 April 2020,
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/23/why-not-limit-neil-
gorsuch-and-all-supreme-court-justices-to-18-year-terms/>.
Toobin, J 2017, The conservative pipeline to the supreme court, The New Yorker, viewed 10
April 2020, <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/the-conservative-pipeline-to-
the-supreme-court>.
Page 5