Blog Stage Five: Is a Lifetime Too Long?
Should justices be allowed lifetime appointments? I am among the many who is not in favor of lifetime appointments at the federal level. Lifetime appointments changing over time, fewer opportunities for diversity, conflicts that come with old age, and diminishing productivity are some of the reasons I am against lifetime appointments.
Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior…" The framers believed this was a good idea at the time to make the judicial branch independent. However, lifetime appointment was different back then. Our life span has increased making retirement age much older. According to a writing from The Slate by Adrienne LaFrance, “The average retirement age among the country's first 10 Supreme Court justices was 60 years old, whereas the average retirement age among the 10 justices who most recently left the bench was 76 years old.” This means that justices serve longer terms today.
This is a problem in many ways. First, it provides fewer opportunities for diversity like race and gender. If all 9 positions are filled with young justices it could be years until someone takes their place. It is important for the justices of the Supreme Court to reflect the diversities of this country. The textbook states, the Supreme Court “focus more closely than other government institutions on the exact context of the individuals, groups, or issues affected by the decision.” This explains why justices must reflect the diversity of this country, so they can understand the issues different people face.
The ability to make rational and important decisions are affected when a person ages. Along with many other things that come with old age, mental deterioration is a common side effect. In a commentary published by The Atlantic, Stuart Taylor writes, “William Douglas, who set the record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years), barely functioned during his last 10 months, after a debilitating stroke in 1975; colleagues informally agreed to nullify any decision in which Douglas cast the deciding vote.” This shows how old age can affect a judge’s ability to vote rationally.
A judge must continuously put in the time and have an open mind when creating an opinion. Long hours of work on tedious issues create exhaustion. Is it possible for justices to stay working hard for the 20 plus years they are on the job? Taylor writes, “The justices have cut their number of full opinions each year in half, to about 75, over the past two decades.” As one can see, the hard work and dedication wears on a judge making productivity diminish.
Of course, there are plenty more reasons for giving up a lifetime appointment these points are just the tip of the iceberg.
In her Blog Stage 5 Post, Ashley E. of the blog Long Live U.S. Rights argues that federal judges, and I think particularly Supreme Court Justices, should not be given lifetime terms. She is concerned about the long span of time between appointments which prevents quick turnovers that might allow the demographics of the court to reflect those of the country's citizens in a timely way. Ashley also points out that Justices serve longer terms on average, and to older ages than in the early days of our nation. She feels that older Justices may not have the stamina to keep up with the workload, and that their mental faculties are compromised.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Ashley, and believe that the lifetime appointment of federal judges and particularly Supreme Court Justices is a good feature of the Judicial Branch and was put into the Constitution for reasons that continue to be relevant. A Justice must not be beholden to the president who appoints him or her, nor to the Senate that confirms the appointment. Ashley did not say whether she thought there should be a term bound by a set number of years or by an upper age limit. Either option would put a Justice in his or her position with a known likely end of term, which would make it possible for appointments to be made and confirmed with even greater political strategy based on a candidate's age or when other elections are scheduled.
The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour", which to my mind means that if a Justice, as in the example given of stroke victim William Douglas, is understood by the Court and by medical experts to be no longer fit, there is provision for removal in that he cannot behave as a judge is meant to. This example further calls into question the judgement of the other, presumably younger Justices who tacitly agreed to limit the damage Douglas could do while protecting one of their own and perhaps their own backs in an effort not to set a precedent by removal. (Continued in a second comment)
It is a misconception that old age is always attended by mental deterioration. It is as often attended by wisdom, and length of experience is a valuable trait in the Judiciary. It is also prudent that a Justice have a long record of opinions before appointment. He or she should further have the benefit of judging cases alongside colleagues whose tenures have already steeped them in the kinds of cases before the court, sometimes even having participated in their precedents. Sporadic and infrequent openings on the court allow for stability and continuity most of the time. If we are to assume that justices are chosen for their knowledge, abilities, and discernment, then we must trust that they will examine all aspects of a case in spite of demographic differences. They also have an oft-changing staff of legal clerks who are able to bring them fresh perspective. As for other federal judgeships, there are so many that opportunities for new appointments arise very often and in fact positions are often left without occupants when a president gets behind in making the appointments. Newly appointed judges of all demographics have their opinions studied carefully when they are passed on to the Supreme Court in cases of further appeal.
ReplyDeleteWhether a Justice is able to work productively over the course of a long career is a question with as many answers as there are individual Justices. However, as previously stated, there are many lawyers employed by the Court who ensure that the Justice does not do all of the work alone. Ashley notes that the number of cases accepted by the Supreme Court is smaller than the number accepted when the average age of Justices was younger, but I think there are many variables which might contribute to this, including the increased amount of research necessary to judge cases which may have already been through multiple appeals in lower courts. The Court also receives so many petitions that it takes more time to look through all of them and discuss them before choices are made about which cases to decide.
I believe that having Justices serve as long as they see fit allows the Court to take into account changes it may see over time without being tempted to capitulate to fashionable opinions, sudden fears or transient values in society. Time spent interpreting and showing fidelity to the Constitution is time well spent in the service of the American people.