Reflections Debating the Constitution.
The article "Another Stab at the Constitution" asks legitimate questions about how the current system of federal judgeships. The writer argues that the constitutional framework which grants the United States of America's courts their current powers should not be implemented today. Article III of the Constitution is the section of the Constitution that grants federal judges their power. Every office in the United States of America has set term limits to ensure no one person holds power for too long. This does not apply to the federal judges who, so long as they have good behavior, will hold their power of judgeship for their whole life. The only way a federal judge can lose its position is by voluntary retirement or through congressional impeachment. The writers argue if we rewrote the constitution today this should be the first thing to be changed and reconsidered.
The writer explains that at the time of writing chief justices did have good reason to have life appointments but those reasons are no longer valid. At 1787 the average life expectancy of an American was around 37 years old, that is less than half of what the life expectancy is today (which is 85 years old). Judges no longer are selected based on merit or distinguished service to the United States of America. Now presidents select judges based on partisan beliefs and age so that they can impose the will of their party for as long as possible. Currently, the Trump Administration appointed two very partisan judges: Justice Neil Gorsuch conservative age 51 and Justice Brett Kavanaugh age 54. Assuming that medical technology does not advance, both of these Justices will hold office for over 30 years, which is clearly not what the drafters of the constitution had in mind.
This is an issue that has been brought to the attention to Congress before, Professors Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren purposed a solution that would bring a new supreme court justice every odd-numbered year. The writer clearly agrees to this idea stating "Eighteen years would mean that a justice’s tenure would be long enough to ensure independence from political patronage. As important, it would be short enough to ensure that we remain a country of laws and not of men." It would be irresponsible for the United States of America to not adopt this idea, lifetime appointments oppose everything the federal government stands for.
The article "Another Stab at the Constitution" asks legitimate questions about how the current system of federal judgeships. The writer argues that the constitutional framework which grants the United States of America's courts their current powers should not be implemented today. Article III of the Constitution is the section of the Constitution that grants federal judges their power. Every office in the United States of America has set term limits to ensure no one person holds power for too long. This does not apply to the federal judges who, so long as they have good behavior, will hold their power of judgeship for their whole life. The only way a federal judge can lose its position is by voluntary retirement or through congressional impeachment. The writers argue if we rewrote the constitution today this should be the first thing to be changed and reconsidered.
The writer explains that at the time of writing chief justices did have good reason to have life appointments but those reasons are no longer valid. At 1787 the average life expectancy of an American was around 37 years old, that is less than half of what the life expectancy is today (which is 85 years old). Judges no longer are selected based on merit or distinguished service to the United States of America. Now presidents select judges based on partisan beliefs and age so that they can impose the will of their party for as long as possible. Currently, the Trump Administration appointed two very partisan judges: Justice Neil Gorsuch conservative age 51 and Justice Brett Kavanaugh age 54. Assuming that medical technology does not advance, both of these Justices will hold office for over 30 years, which is clearly not what the drafters of the constitution had in mind.
This is an issue that has been brought to the attention to Congress before, Professors Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren purposed a solution that would bring a new supreme court justice every odd-numbered year. The writer clearly agrees to this idea stating "Eighteen years would mean that a justice’s tenure would be long enough to ensure independence from political patronage. As important, it would be short enough to ensure that we remain a country of laws and not of men." It would be irresponsible for the United States of America to not adopt this idea, lifetime appointments oppose everything the federal government stands for.
Comments
Post a Comment