10 April 2012
Reaction Paper #3
I think that the Supreme Court can be considered undemocratic because once they are elected, they are there for good unless Congress votes 2/3 and the President approves then they can be removed from their power. I think they are elected for life because it would not be easy for Congress, the current President, and even the American people to sway their decisions. The Supreme Court is designed to rule only on the constitutionality of both federal and state laws, which is known as judicial review. They are the only federal position that has a great amount power that is appointed by the President is the Supreme Court. I also think another reason why people could consider the Supreme Court to be undemocratic because the President elects them and not the American citizens, like they do for a presidential election. However, through time the President changes so the Supreme Court judges get some recycling, but not nearly as often as some American citizens wish. I think that the Supreme Court could also be considered undemocratic is because they are supposed to stick to the Constitution on their decisions, but their interpretation. Obviously, people and even members of the Supreme Court have different views on the Constitution. If there is a judge that is considered to be moderate who gets removed, and a liberal one is put in his or her place, their interpretation will most likely conflict with what a much more experienced conservative Supreme Court member that was elected by a different, former President would. I also think that the Supreme Court is undemocratic because they want to impartial to everyone.
The average age of Supreme Court judges (as of 2010) is 64.1 years as opposed to 70, which what it was in 2005. This is because of the recent judges put into the Supreme Court. They are: Chief Justice Roberts (55), Justice Samuel Alito (60), Justice Sonia Sotomayor (56), and Justice Elena...