Introduction
There has been much discussion on whether term limits for federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, should be implemented. Term limits would provide new viewpoints, improve accountability, and lessen the ferocity of political disputes around appointments (Cooper et al. 2766). Verkuil, however, argues that lifetime appointments ensure the judiciary’s stability and judicial independence (468). Determining the best strategy for judicial tenure requires balancing these factors, which is critical. The judiciary in the U.S. was designed to limit the role of politics through lifetime appointments and judicial reviews, but it is not completely immune from political influences, as demonstrated by Supreme Court confirmation proceedings.
Ways the Judiciary Was Designed to Limit the Role of Politics
In order to minimize the influence of politics and guarantee the independence of the court, the American judicial system was created with a number of elements. As an illustration, federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, are selected by the President and approved by the Senate. In order to protect them from political pressure and preserve their independence from transient political changes, they serve for life or until they decide to resign. Judges now have the security and stability they need to make judgments that are guided by the law rather than politics, owing to this lifelong appointment (Verkuil 468). In addition, the historic Marbury v. Madison decision established the authority of judicial review, which enables the judiciary to interpret and reject statutes that are incompatible with the Constitution (deButts 2). This power enables the courts to act as a check on the other branches of government and protect constitutional principles, irrespective of political pressures.
Reasons Why the Courts Are Not Immune From the Influence of Politics
Although the American judicial system is intended to restrict the influence of politics, it would be incorrect to suggest that courts are totally free from politics. Political factors, for instance, may have an impact on the process of appointing judges in the judiciary. Presidents typically appoint judges who share their political and ideological philosophies (Orentlicher 5). Senators’ consideration of the nominee’s political views during the confirmation process in the Senate may also be divisive. This political factor may have an impact on the judiciary’s makeup and, ultimately, its rulings.
While state-level judges in certain jurisdictions are chosen through elections, federal judges are not. As judges may need to manage public opinion, campaign finance, and partisan interests, their election process can add political dynamics and pressures that may affect their decision-making (Orentlicher 10). Due to this, political influence on judges may be unavoidable because they are human beings with their own opinions and viewpoints.
Roles Politics Play in Supreme Court Confirmation Proceedings
In the US, the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is heavily influenced by politics. As an illustration, in a presidential nomination, the president, who is a political figure, chooses the candidate to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court (Orentlicher 12). Political factors, such as the nominee’s judicial philosophy, ideology, and possible impact on the Court’s makeup, frequently affect the president’s pick. In this situation, the presidents could try to nominate judges who share their political beliefs or who can promote certain policy objectives.
Furthermore, Senate confirmation procedures for the Supreme Court have a crucial influence on politics. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings during which the candidate is questioned about their credentials, jurisprudential outlook, and prospective influence on the Court. In order to support or oppose the candidate based on party, ideological, or policy considerations, senators often come to these hearings with predetermined political agendas (Rogowski and Andrew 1252). In this sense, senators from the president’s party often support the candidate, whereas senators from the opposing party may examine the nominee more closely or even actively oppose them.
Term Limits for Federal Judges
There is ongoing discussion regarding the merits of term limitations for federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court. To guarantee judicial independence, according to Dow and Sanat, there should be no term limits for federal judges (89). To shield judges from political influences and uphold judicial independence, lifetime appointments are made for federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court (Dow and Sanat 90). Therefore, term restrictions can possibly undermine fundamental freedom because judges might feel more pressured to make rulings that reflect public opinion or political objectives if they face re-election. A level of stability and continuity in the judiciary is also provided by lifetime appointments (Dow and Sanat 93). Long-serving judges can help establish consistent legal precedents and principles throughout time, giving the law a sense of certainty.
Nevertheless, there are a number of factors that outweigh the dearth of term limits for federal judges. For instance, term restrictions may encourage the bench to adopt fresh viewpoints and concepts (Cooper et al. 2766). Limited-term justices may be better attuned to changing society norms, technological advancements, and legal advances, avoiding the Court being remote or out of touch (Cooper et al. 2766). In addition, due to their lifetime appointments, Supreme Court judges frequently face major political risks (Copper et al. 2767). As a result, term limits could lessen the intensity of political conflicts over appointments because each appointment’s influence would have a shorter lifespan.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the judiciary in the U.S. was intentionally designed to limit the role of politics through measures such as lifetime appointments and judicial review. While these design elements aim to ensure judicial independence and impartial decision-making, it is important to acknowledge that the judiciary is not completely immune from political influences. As such, term limits should be implemented for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, as it ensures such benefits as fresh perspectives and reduced political stakes.
Works Cited
Cooper, Tyler, et al. “Retiring Life Tenure: On Term Limits and Regular Appointments at the Supreme Court.” Cardozo Law Review, vol. 42, no. 2020, pp. 2763-2775. Web.
deButts, Daniel R. “A Game Theoretic Analysis of Marbury v Madison: The Origins of Judicial Review.” James Blair Historical Review, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019, pp. 1-18. Web.
Dow, David R., and Sanat Mehta. “Does Eliminating Life Tenure for Article III Judges Require a Constitutional Amendment?.” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, vol. 16, no. 1, 2021, pp. 89-119. Web.
Orentlicher, David, “Politics and the Supreme Court: The Need for Ideological Balance” Scholarly Works, vol. 1153, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-27. Web.
Rogowski, Jon C., and Andrew R. Stone. “How political contestation over judicial nominations polarizes Americans’ attitudes toward the Supreme Court.” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 51, no. 3, 2021, pp. 1251-1269. Web.
Verkuil, Paul R. “Presidential Administration, the Appointment of ALJs, and the Future of For Cause Protection.” Administrative Law Review, vol. 72, no. 1, 2020, pp. 461-464. Web.