Us Constitution: Safeguarding Judicial Independence

The US Constitution defends judges' jobs in several ways. Firstly, it establishes a Supreme Court and guarantees the right to a fair trial, ensuring that judges have the power to interpret and apply laws without political influence. Article III, Section I states that the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts, allowing them to decide cases and resolve controversies. Judges are appointed for life, holding their offices during good behaviour, which helps maintain their independence. The Constitution also empowers the Supreme Court to review and strike down laws that violate it, ensuring government branches recognize their power limits. This judicial review power was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the Court decided that an Act of Congress contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

Explore related products

The Nature of the Judicial Process

$5.69 $8.95

Judicial Independence and the American Constitution: A Democratic Paradox

$65 $65

Plenary Power Explained: Understanding U.S. Constitutional Authority: A Beginner’s Guide to Separation of Powers and Executive Limits

$3.99 $11.99

The Campaign to Impeach Justice William O. Douglas: Nixon, Vietnam, and the Conservative Attack on Judicial Independence

$54.99 $59.99

IN TRUMP’S SHADOW: John Roberts and the Fight for Judicial Supremacy

$12.99

The Politics of Judicial Independence: Courts, Politics, and the Public

$61 $33

Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate

The US Constitution grants the President the power to appoint federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. This power is derived from Article II's Appointments Clause and Article III, which establishes the judicial branch of the national government. However, the appointment process also involves the Senate, which plays a crucial role in confirming the President's nominations.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution authorizes the President to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in session. These appointments are temporary and expire at the end of the Senate's next session. While the President has the primary authority to select federal judges, the Senate exerts influence through its confirmation process.

The process of appointing federal judges typically involves several steps: presidential nomination, a Senate committee hearing, a vote by a Senate committee, a confirmation vote by the full Senate, and the confirmed nominee taking their judicial oath and receiving their judicial commission. The Senate committee plays a vital role in evaluating the qualifications and suitability of the nominees before presenting them to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.

The Senate has historically exercised more influence over district court appointments, with home-state senators having a direct interest in the selection process. The practice of "senatorial courtesy," where senators do not vote to confirm a nominee objected to by a senator from the same state, has been a check on the President's discretion in choosing district judges. Additionally, internal Senate procedures and norms can affect the way presidents nominate judges.

The appointment of federal judges by the President and confirmation by the Senate is a key aspect of the US Constitution's design, ensuring a balance of powers and providing stability to the judiciary. Federal judges appointed through this process hold their offices during "good behaviour" and receive compensation that cannot be diminished during their continuance in office, as per Article III, Section 1.

Judges hold their offices during good behaviour and cannot be removed

The US Constitution, in Article III, Section 1, states that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." This clause, known as the Good Behaviour Clause, is designed to ensure that judges are independent and can decide cases according to the law without worrying about retaliation from powerful individuals or majorities.

The interpretation of "holding offices during good behaviour" has been debated, with some arguing that it implies an alternative standard of removal beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors" that typically lead to impeachment. However, the modern view of Congress appears to be that "good behaviour" does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct. For practical purposes, federal judges have ""lifetime tenure" unless they are impeached and convicted by the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, or voluntarily step down.

The Good Behaviour Clause does not shield federal judges from criminal prosecution or impeachment for corruption or conflicts of interest. While judges cannot be retaliated against by having their salaries cut, they can be prosecuted and impeached if they break the law or act unethically. This ensures that judges are held accountable for their actions and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

The independence guaranteed by the Good Behaviour Clause is crucial in preserving the integrity of the judiciary and upholding the rule of law. By insulating judges from external pressures and political influences, it enables them to make decisions based solely on the law and the facts of each case. This independence is a cornerstone of the US Constitution's system of checks and balances, ensuring that the judiciary can act as a check on the other branches of government and safeguard individual rights and liberties.

Judges are compensated for their services and this cannot be diminished during their tenure

The US Constitution ensures that judges are compensated for their services and that this compensation cannot be decreased during their time in office. This is outlined in Article III, Section 1, which states:

> "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

This clause, known as the Compensation Clause, is rooted in the Anglo-American tradition of an independent judiciary, which is essential for maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that judges are free from potential domination by other branches of government. By guaranteeing judges a fixed salary that cannot be reduced, the Constitution protects judges from external influences and ensures that they can decide cases based on the law without fear of retaliation or financial repercussions.

The Compensation Clause has been interpreted to mean that Congress cannot reduce a judge's salary once it has been set, although they may repeal a promised increase before it takes effect. This provision was tested during the Great Depression, when an appropriations act reduced the salaries of judges. The Supreme Court upheld the act, distinguishing between judges in the District of Columbia, who were protected by Article III, and judges of the Court of Claims, whose salaries were subject to reduction.

While judges are expected to "share the tax burdens borne by all citizens," as affirmed in cases like United States v. Hatter, their compensation cannot be diminished through discriminatory taxation. For example, in O'Malley v. Woodrough, the Court upheld the application of the Revenue Act of 1932, which extended income tax to judges taking office after a certain date. The Court ruled that this nondiscriminatory tax did not encroach on judicial independence.

The Constitution's protection of judges' compensation during their tenure is part of a broader effort to ensure judicial independence and uphold the rule of law. By providing financial security and shielding judges from external pressures, the Constitution empowers judges to act impartially and make decisions based solely on the law.

Explore related products

American Government Explained: Bills, Budgets and Executive Orders Made Simple

$11.99

The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind—and Changed the History of Free Speech in America

$12.96 $18.99

The Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution with Bill of Rights and all Amendments (Annotated)

$0.99 $3.89

LEGAL SPEAK: EVERYONE'S GLOSSARY OF JUDICIAL JARGON

$12.99

Common Law Handbook: For Juror's, Sheriff's, Bailiff's, and Justice's

$5

People's Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him

$13.48 $32.99

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, to declare acts in violation of the Constitution

The US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land, separate from the legislature (Congress) and the executive (the President). Article III, Section I of the Constitution states:

> "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which is the ability to declare acts of Congress or the Executive in violation of the Constitution. This power was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the Court decided that an Act of Congress contrary to the Constitution could not stand. The Court's power of judicial review ensures that each branch of government recognises the limits of its power.

The Supreme Court's decisions have a significant impact on society, beyond just lawyers and judges. For example, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), the Court held that students could not be punished for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, protecting their freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court currently consists of one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The number of seats on the Court has varied over time, but it has been fixed at nine since shortly after the Civil War.

The Supreme Court protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution

The US Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, which is separate from the legislature (Congress) and the executive (the President). The Constitution permits Congress to decide how to organise the Supreme Court, and Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created a Supreme Court with six justices.

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in protecting civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. This power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act unconstitutional.

Before the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. However, after its passage, the Supreme Court ruled that most of its provisions applied to the states as well. This gave the Court the final say on whether a Constitutional right has been violated.

The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous landmark cases that have had a profound impact on society, including Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), which upheld the right of students to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the right to privacy or "liberty" is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, protecting individuals from government actions that would deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process.

The Court's decisions have helped drive fundamental social change, especially during the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, when the Court played a crucial role in protecting the rights and liberties of all people, regardless of race, gender, or sexuality.

Frequently asked questions