U.S. Supreme Court justices receive lifetime appointments to the bench, but many wonder if indefinite terms do more harm to our legal system than good.
- With a second nomination to the Supreme Court, President Trump has the ability to alter the political leanings of the country's highest court for decades.
- The Founding Fathers gave justices and other federal judges a lifetime appointment to prevent them from being influenced by other branches of government.
- Today, many argue that federal judges should be subject to term limits as modern politics and life expectancy have outpaced the Founders' original vision.
The why of lifetime appointments<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODY0MjI5OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTk3NTg0N30.-0ZZOdmawao0LwfXWv5_uWZ5h4TVQLCRAAWbMr39D1E/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C1325&height=700" id="27509" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4f89b529f0750fc0e053c85e856e337b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="SCOTUS justices are granted a lifetime appointment under Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution." />
A close up of the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS justices are granted a lifetime appointment under Article III, Section 1.
(Photo by Tetra Images/Getty Images)<p> The U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically grant Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment. Instead, Article III, Section 1, <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript" target="_blank">states that</a> federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it. As long as <a href="https://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/has-the-supreme-court-become-dishonest-and-untrustworthy-one-of-its-members-thinks-so" target="_blank">federal judges don't commit a crime</a> — and remember their pleases and thank yous — they keep their seat. </p><p> The phrase "during good Behavior" translates to a lifetime appointment because the Founders set no specific term or age limit for service. This means that the only actions that can remove a federal judge are death, resignation, or impeachment by Congress. </p><p> Most federal judges exit by way of death or resignation, with impeachment coming into play sparingly. <a href="https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges" target="_blank"> <u>Only 15 federal judges</u></a> in U.S. history have ever been impeached and never a Supreme Court justice. Of the 113 justices to serve, only two have been faced with the threat of impeachment. </p><p> In 1804, the House impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, but he was not convicted by the Senate, and he continued to serve on the bench until his death in 1811. In 1969, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment. There have been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/12/can-a-supreme-court-justice-be-forcibly-removed-from-the-bench-a-quick-civics-lesson/?utm_term=.73eeffed1b67" target="_blank">other calls for impeachment</a>, of course, but these two stories represent the farthest such actions have managed to hinder a justice's career.</p><p> For the record, justices serve on average <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_justices.aspx" target="_blank">for 16 years.</a> However, when we only take into consideration justices from after the 1970s, the average jumps to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dems-choices-for-bench-suprisingly-slim/" target="_blank">26 years</a>. The longest-serving justice was William O. Douglas, who sat on the bench for 36 years, seven months, and eight days.</p>
Reasons for a lifetime appointment<p>This conversation is uniquely American. No other major democracy grants federal judges lifetime tenure. Some have mandatory retirement ages, some set term limits, and <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=701121" target="_blank">some do both</a>. But the Founding Fathers had very specific concerns they were trying to counter with such a far-reaching policy. </p><p> Returning to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1, also states that federal judges shall receive compensation and that compensation "shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." (As of Jan. 1, 2018, associate justices <a href="https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/judicial-salaries-supreme-court-justices" target="_blank">receive a salary</a> of $255,300, and the chief justice receives $267,000.) </p><p> The reason the Founders set no term limits goes hand-in-hand with their prohibition on diminishing wages: Both serve to prevent the legislative and executive branches from manipulating the courts. The wording of Article III means that neither the president nor Congress can institute term limits or a pay cut, ensuring judges are secure in their job and beholden to neither branch's whims. </p><p> Alexander Hamilton made this argument overt in <em><a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp" target="_blank">The Federalist Papers: No. 78</a></em>. "If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices," Hamilton wrote, "since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."</p><p> These Constitutional freedoms should (in theory) put justices above politics and allow them to rule through a fair, unbiased interpretation of the law. Rising above partisan politics would also allow the Supreme Court to stand as a lawful, <a href="https://schultzstake.blogspot.com/2015/07/getting-money-out-of-politics-two-essays.html" target="_blank"><u>counter-majoritarian</u></a> force that could protect the rights of the minority in the face of popular politics. (Again, in theory. There have been times when the Supreme Court has enshrined popular tyranny into law—looking your way, <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html" target="_blank"><u><em>Dred Scott v. Sandford</em></u></a><em>.)</em></p><p> When it comes to the idea of imposing term limits, some worry that such an act would set a precedent that allows the other branches of government to further shackle the court's power—effectively negating the checks and balances set by the Founding Fathers. </p><p> "Imagine if Congress all of a sudden thought […] that it should be regulating the Supreme Court on a much more aggressive basis," said Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, during a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9kCV0JeuVg" target="_blank"><u>National Constitution Center debate on the subject</u></a>. "I worry about a precedent where we start opening the door for Congress—especially <em>this </em>Congress—to flex its muscles, to use its power to try new ways to impose more and more constraints on the independence of the justices." </p>
Should we set term limits on SCOTUS justices?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODY0MjMzMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MTMwOTk2MX0.t_isHAgTXOnF76tcXpbGZjj3Epg3LzvXT89Jk3G_MkA/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C45%2C0%2C594&height=700" id="10190" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e22f5bb76eeb023616683721c10600bc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival. " />
United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival. Appointed by President Clinton, Justice Ginsburg continues to serve at 85 years old.
(Photo by Robin Marchant/Getty Images)
Can anything be done?<p>Not much. <a href="http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/new-poll-americans-strongly-support-term-limits-for-judges/" target="_blank"><u>The majority of Americans</u></a> agree that term limits for federal judges should be enacted, but setting a such a limit would take an act of Congress.</p><p>Could both parties ultimately come to an agreement that such limits are beneficial? Maybe, but even if they did, it seems unlikely a situation would arise in which neither party felt such an act would not benefit one party over the other. Not to mention the bad blood from years of politicking to secure seats on the bench, such as the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now" target="_blank"><u>Merrick Garland incident</u></a>.</p><p>The only real recourse the average American has is to vote for representatives that support their views, whether those views are for or against term limits.</p>
Do you know your rights? Hit refresh on your constitutional knowledge!
The 2nd Amendment: How the gun control debate went crazy
The gun control debate has been at fever pitch for several years now, and as things fail to change the stats get grimmer. The New York Times reports that there have been 239 school shootings nationwide since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre, where 20 first graders and six adults were killed. Six years later, 438 more people have been shot in schools, and for 138 of them it was fatal. Here, journalist and author Kurt Andersen reads the Second Amendment, and explains its history from 1791 all the way to now. "What people need to know is that the Second Amendment only recently became such a salient amendment," says Andersen. It's only in the last 50 years that the gun debate has gone haywire, and it was the moment the NRA went from reasonable to absolutist. So what does the "right to bear arms" really mean? What was a firearm in the 1790s, and what is a firearm now? "Compared to [the] many, many, many rounds-per-second firearms that we have today, it's the same word but virtually a different machine." Kurt Andersen is the author of Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire.
The 5th Amendment: Do not break in case of emergency
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is often talked about but rarely read in full. The reason? Counterterrorism expert Amaryllis Fox explains that it has, these days, simply become shorthand for not saying anything in court to incriminate yourself. But the full text states how important the due process of law is to every American. So perhaps learning the full text, not just the shorthand, is an important step to being an American citizen. You can find out more about Amaryllis Fox here.
The 13th Amendment: The unjust prison to profit pipeline
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery—but it still remains legal under one condition. The amendment reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Today in America, big corporations profit of cheap prison labor in both privatized and state-run prisons. Shaka Senghor knows this second wave of slavery well—he spent 19 years in jail, working for a starting wage of 17 cents per hour, in a prison where a 15-minute phone call costs between $3-$15. In this video, he shares the exploitation that goes on in American prisons, and how the 13th Amendment allows slavery to continue. He also questions the profit incentive to incarcerate in this country: why does America represent less than 5% of the world's population, but almost 25% of the world's prisoners? Shaka Senghor's latest venture is Mind Blown Media.
The 14th Amendment: History's most radical idea?
In 1868, three years after slavery was abolished, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted, granting equal protection under the law to every born and naturalized U.S. citizen. For CNN news commentator Van Jones this amendment is, in his words, the "whole enchilada." It's not the most popular amendment—it doesn't get name-dropped in TV courtroom dramas, or fiercely debated before elections—but to Jones it is a weighty principle that was far ahead of its time. "It doesn't say equal protection under the law unless you're a lesbian. That's not what it says. It doesn't say equal protection under the law unless you're African American. That's not what it says. It says if you're in the jurisdiction you get equal protection under the law. That's radical. In 10,000 years of human history, that's radical." Van Jones is the author of Beyond the Messy Truth: How We Came Apart, How We Come Together.
The 26th Amendment: The act of voting should empower people
Is a 55.7% voter turnout really enough? Bryan Cranston was disappointed with the 2016 presidential election, not for the outcome but for the process. According to Census Bureau figures it was a bumper year for voter engagement with 137.5 million total ballots cast—but is just over half of the eligible voters really that impressive? The Pew Research Center shows that the U.S. still trails behind most developed nations in voter registration and turnout. "I think we've devalued the honor and privilege of voting and we've become complacent, and maybe a bit cynical about our place and rights as citizens and our duties and responsibilities," says Cranston. The good news? Millennials and Gen Xers are on an upward trend in civic engagement, casting more votes than Boomers and older generations in the 2016 election. Cranston reminds us of how empowering the 26th Amendment is in granting voting rights to Americans over the age of 18. "We can't take that lightly," says Cranston. It's a timely reminder too, as 40 million people are expected to drop off that 55.7% figure for the midterm elections, mostly from the millennial, unmarried women and people of color demographics. Bryan Cranston's new book is the spectacular memoir A Life in Parts.
Charges of treason are often used incorrectly in today's political climate. Treason has a very specific definition in the U.S. Constitution.