Supreme Court: Lifetime Appointment, Constitutional?

The US Constitution's interpretation is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the country. The Supreme Court's nine justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. One of the most notable aspects of the Supreme Court is that justices are appointed for life. This means that they are not subject to political pressure or influence, and can take a long-term view of legal issues. However, this has also led to concerns about a lack of accountability and the potential for political bias. The idea of lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices has been questioned, with some calling for reform and the implementation of term limits.

Explore related products

The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process

$14.55 $26.95

Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Bush II

$44.03 $60.3

The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment That Redefined the Supreme Court

$15.99 $21.99

Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee

$7.1

The U.S. Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

$3.99 $4.79

Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court: From Brandeis to Kagan (Brandeis Series in American Jewish History, Culture, and Life)

$32.76 $39.95

Pros of lifetime appointments

The Founding Fathers designed the Supreme Court to be a check on the power of the other branches of government, with justices appointed for life to guarantee their independence and judicial impartiality. Here are some pros of lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices:

Safeguarding the independence of the judiciary

By appointing justices for life, the Founding Fathers intended to create a check on the other branches' potential abuse of power. Supreme Court justices are not subject to political pressure or influence, as they do not have to seek reelection or curry favor with political parties. This helps ensure that they are free to interpret the Constitution and federal law without any undue influence.

Stability for the Court

Lifetime appointments provide stability to the Supreme Court, which is essential as the Court interprets the Constitution and establishes long-lasting precedents that shape American law. Justices can take a long-term view of legal issues and address potential issues in the future.

Gaining significant expertise and experience

Lifetime appointments allow justices to gain significant knowledge, expertise, and experience. They can develop a deep understanding of how the law operates in practice, allowing them to make informed decisions when interpreting the Constitution and federal law.

Preventing political influence

Lifetime appointments help insulate justices from partisan politics and ensure they are not beholden to anyone. This was intended to preserve the total independence of the judiciary, allowing justices to interpret the law without being influenced by the other branches of government.

While there are arguments in favor of lifetime appointments, it is important to consider the potential drawbacks as well. Some critics argue that lifetime appointments lack accountability and that the increased life expectancy of justices may warrant a reconsideration of the system.

Cons of lifetime appointments

The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court Justices is derived from the US Constitution, which states that judges and justices "shall hold their offices during good behaviour". While this interpretation has long been regarded as a safeguard for democracy, there are several cons to this system.

Lack of Accountability

The Constitution provides a mechanism for removing justices through impeachment, but this has only been attempted once, in 1804, and was ultimately unsuccessful. This means that Supreme Court justices are not directly accountable to the American people and can only be removed in exceptional circumstances.

Political Bias

Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and political considerations can play a role in these appointments. This can result in justices with strong political leanings, which can influence their legal interpretations. Additionally, a justice's political ideology can change over time, meaning they may continue to shape the Court's decisions long after they no longer represent the views of the American people.

Inflexibility

The current system of lifetime appointments gives presidents disproportionate power to shape the Supreme Court. For example, President Nixon made four appointments in five years, while President Carter made none during his term. This has led to concerns that the judiciary is an extension of the political battleground, with lifetime appointments exacerbating this issue.

Long Tenure

The average tenure of a justice has increased significantly over time. Since 1970, the average tenure has been 26.1 years, compared to an average of 14.9 years before 1970. This is due in part to the increased life expectancy in the US, which has risen to nearly 80 years, almost three decades longer than when the Constitution was written. As a result, the effective tenure of a Supreme Court justice today is nearly four times the term of the original justices. For example, Justice Clarence Thomas has served for 32 years and is expected to serve for a total of 44 years, more than five times the average tenure of the original justices.

Public Trust

There is a widespread perception that the Supreme Court is disconnected from modern values and beliefs, and that its decisions are based on the political leanings of justices rather than the rule of law. This has led to a lack of confidence in the institution, with most Americans wanting to end lifetime appointments.

History of lifetime appointments

The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices in the United States is a long-standing tradition derived from the US Constitution, which states that these judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour." This interpretation, although not an express grant of life tenure, has been the basis for the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices. The intent behind this was to insulate justices from partisan politics and preserve the independence of the judiciary, as justices would not be beholden to anyone once confirmed.

Alexander Hamilton, during the drafting era, championed lifetime tenure as essential for judicial independence, arguing that the judiciary, lacking military or financial power, posed the least threat. This view was supported by the Federalists, including Thomas Jefferson, who later changed his stance. The interpretation that the Constitution's language implies life tenure is not new, and it has been a prevailing rationale that this system "insulates [federal judges] from the temporary passions of the public."

However, in recent years, the Supreme Court has faced increasing accusations of partisanship and polarization, reflecting the partisan divide in the US. Critics argue that lifetime appointments give justices excessive power to push their personal, ideological agendas with little accountability. The current system also gives presidents disproportionate power to shape the Supreme Court, as they are given the authority to nominate justices to fill vacancies, which occur by chance. This has led to concerns about the judiciary's impartiality and effectiveness, with some suggesting that lifetime appointments may no longer serve their intended purpose in the modern political landscape.

As a result, there have been growing calls for reform, with 77% of Americans supporting the establishment of term limits for Supreme Court justices. One popular proposal is the introduction of 18-year term limits, with a new justice appointed every two years, ensuring a predictable and less partisan process. While this proposal does not contravene the "good behaviour" clause, as justices could continue serving as senior justices for life on lower federal courts, it addresses concerns about the length of service and the potential for justices to wield power for decades.

Explore related products

Supreme Court Appointment Process

$29.89 $75

Supreme Court Appointment Process Update (American Political, Economic, and Security Issues)

$27.26 $59

Supreme Court Appointments and Nominations (American Political, Economic, and Security Issues)

$153.08 $210

Appointment and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court police

$9.99

Making the Supreme Court: The Politics of Appointments, 1930-2020

$31.3 $38.99

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee

$0.99 $3.95

Reforming the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the nation and plays a critical role in interpreting the Constitution and federal law. The Court consists of nine justices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. One of the unique aspects of the Supreme Court is that justices serve for life unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office. This system of lifetime appointments is based on the Constitution's language that judges and justices "shall hold their offices during good behaviour."

Over the years, there has been increasing debate and calls for reform regarding the Supreme Court's lifetime appointments. One of the main arguments in favour of lifetime appointments is that it provides stability and independence to the Court. Lifetime appointments allow justices to be free from political pressure and influence, as they do not have to seek reelection or favour any political party. This independence is essential for ensuring that the Court can interpret the Constitution and federal law without undue influence. Additionally, lifetime appointments enable justices to gain significant expertise and experience, enhancing their legal knowledge and contributing to the Court's overall functioning.

However, critics of lifetime appointments argue that it leads to a lack of accountability and the potential for political bias. While the Constitution provides for the removal of justices through impeachment, it has rarely been used and poses a challenge for direct accountability to the American people. Another concern is that political considerations may influence the appointments, resulting in justices with strong political leanings that could impact their legal interpretations. The changing political landscape and increasing life expectancy have also been cited as reasons to reconsider lifetime appointments, as justices may continue to shape the Court's decisions long after they reflect the views of the American people.

Several proposals have been suggested to reform the Supreme Court's lifetime appointments. One idea is to implement term limits, such as an 18-year standard term, which would ensure predictable appointments and limit the potential for partisan influence. Another suggestion is to establish a compulsory retirement age for justices, similar to the practices in other democracies. Ethics reforms have also been proposed, including imposing a code of conduct requiring public disclosure of gifts and hospitality to enhance transparency and address concerns about the influence of special interests. Additionally, there are calls to increase the number of judges on the Supreme Court to dilute the influence of any single justice and reduce the impact of political considerations in appointments.

While there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate, the need for reform is gaining traction. The Supreme Court's approval rating has slipped to record lows, with a growing concern that political considerations may be influencing its decisions. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have expressed support for reform efforts, indicating that changes to the Supreme Court's structure and practices may be on the horizon.

Removing justices from office

The U.S. Constitution grants Supreme Court justices lifetime tenure, which means they serve for life unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office. This is distinct from most other democracies, where high court judges have mandatory retirement ages or strict term limits.

The Constitution provides a mechanism for removing justices through impeachment by the House of Representatives, followed by conviction in the Senate. However, impeachment of judges is rare, and removal is even rarer. Since 1803, the House has impeached only 15 judges, with an average of one every 14 years, and only eight of those impeachments resulted in convictions.

The process of impeachment and removal of justices is intended to preserve the independence of the judiciary and protect against partisan politics. The idea of lifetime appointments is derived from the language in the Constitution that judges and justices "shall hold their offices during good behaviour." This means that justices are not subject to direct accountability by the American people and can only be removed in exceptional circumstances.

There are several arguments for and against lifetime appointments. On the one hand, lifetime appointments provide stability to the Court and allow justices to take a long-term view of legal issues, address potential future concerns, and gain significant expertise and experience over time. This accumulated knowledge enhances their legal expertise and ensures the Court's independence.

On the other hand, lifetime appointments can lead to a lack of accountability and the perpetuation of political biases. Justices with strong political leanings may influence their legal interpretations, and their ideologies can change over time, no longer representing the views of the American people. Additionally, the increased life expectancy since the 18th century when the Constitution was written has led to reconsiderations of justices' lifetime appointments.

Frequently asked questions