The U.S. Supreme Court Assignment Law Essay Research Paper

The U.S. Supreme Court
Author Name
University Name
Introduction
According to Evan Tsen Lee, the United States government has started appointing judges for as long as they do not commit any crime. The drafters of the Constitution think that it will protect judges from influencing the political and social systems of the country. They would be able to make the right decisions and play an integral part in the betterment and progress of the country. However, they can be opposed by a majority of voters, and if it happens, then the government might decide to replace them. At the same time, the votes of the minority will not impact their performance and reputation (Lee, 2011).
It should be noticed that the president himself appoints the federal judge, but the Senate is responsible for confirming his job. Once federal judges are seated, they are allowed to continue working for as long as they request retirement, die or fall seriously ill. Most recently, the appointment of federal judges has raised various questions in the minds of politicians, media persons and the public (Domnarski, 2008).
Some of them oppose the idea of appointing a judge for the lifetime, while the others support it to an extent. Supporters of term limit are found arguing that people do not live as long as centuries ago, so the idea of appointing judges for a lifetime makes no sense. They think that a judge should not serve longer than seven years, and after this period, he should be replaced by a new one. Those who favor lifetime appointments claim that the calls for judicial term limits have recently been bubbled up due to the divisive nature of cases the courts take up (Cohen & Piquero, 2009).
Advantages of Lifetime Appointments for the Supreme Court
One of the major advantages of lifetime appointments is that judges of all ages can be nominated. Previously, the Supreme Court used to nominate only the younger people. The others were not given any relaxation in the age limit even though they were more experienced and educated than the younger ones (Lee, 2011, p. 59). However, with the lifetime appointment, it is now possible for everyone to be nominated irrespective of his age, class, gender, and experience. In simple words, we can say that a 25-year-old judge can now perform the same duties and enjoy the same facilities as are provided to a 50-year-old judge (Lee, 2011).
Another pro is that the chances of politically motivated retirements have been reduced. It means a judge will not get retired early just because of the political voices being raised against him. The president will decide whether his involvement is because of a political gain or he is serious about performing his duties as a judge. Based on the facts, it can be decided whether he should be allowed to work further or not. Thirdly, we should not forget that term limits can bring the court’s decisions, opinions, and thoughts closer to people (Cohen & Piquero, 2009).
In his article titled Judicial Appointments Recounted, William Domnarski states that the rulings can better mirror the public if judges are appointed for a lifetime. Breathing new life means every individual will take decisions from his own perspective, which may or may not impact the public. However, if ...