Pros And Cons Of US Supreme Court Justices

An impending issue currently involves the terms of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. They are enjoying extended stays on the bench due to an increase in life expectancy. In fact, Justices are now serving an average of 26.1 years before retiring or death—twelve years longer than they did when the average span of a judge’s tenure was roughly fourteen years. Therefore, a proposal has been offered that addresses this concern. Under this proposal a judge would serve a term of ten years; after ten years the Justice would be eligible for re-appointment by the President upon approval of the Senate. This proposal has the benefit of limiting a Justice’s time on the bench, but that is outweighed by the proposal’s flaws. Therefore, a second proposal of
At the end of the October 2004 term those current nine members had served together for eleven years, more than any other set of judges in U.S. history (Calabresi, Lindgren). Since there has been a lack of vacancies, few Presidents have been able to set the course of the courts by appointing like-minded judges; in years prior to 1970 judges were appointed roughly every two years. This undermines the efficiency of the democratic checks and balances. It also prevents the infusion of ideas that spring from the generational interest of the time. If every president was able to appoint a judge then it is highly probable there will be more cultural diversity on the court. There would be younger judges on the bench with a mindset more nearly reflective of the interests and issues of a newer generation. Another concern of the current situation is that the judges are serving much longer than their minds would normally allow, seeing as how some judges are serving well into their eighties. “The history of the Court is replete with repeated instances of Justices casting decisive votes or otherwise participating actively in the Court’s work when their colleagues and/or families had serious doubts about their mental capacities” (Garrow, David). And during the twentieth century the problem has multiplied. How are judges to base constitutional decisions rationally when their minds may not be so rational? Chief Justice Rehnquist continued to serve in office (for nineteen years) while regularly abusing the drug Placidyl. Justice William O. Douglas continued to serve on the court even after suffering from a stroke and many had questioned his capabilities. So to eradicate the life long tenure would surely eliminate the problem of judicial senility and possible