A few potential United States Republican presidential candidates have recently expressed their desire
to limit the life-long terms served by federal judges, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turns
82 with no plans of retiring.
Although it’s not the most game-changing campaign issue out there, it’s one that
many people have been questioning lately.
Why do some judges serve for life?
Well, for starters, Supreme Court Justices, judges from the federal district courts, the
courts of appeals, and the US Court of International Trade are the only ones who get the life-term.
Other state judges and the like are still subject to term limits.
In fact, virtually all other political offices in the three branches of US government have
very specific term limits as defined by the Constitution, before they must seek re-election.
But the framers were vague about federal judges.
Article three, section one says that they “shall hold their offices during good behavior”,
which has historically been interpreted to mean they can choose to serve “for life,
unless they get impeached”.
So what’s the logic behind life-time appointments?
Well, the framers wanted judges to be as non-partisan as possible.
By removing their need to run for re-election on various political platforms every few years,
federal judges are expected to be impartial in their court decisions in order to uphold
the law.
As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “The Government of the United States has been emphatically
termed a government of laws, and not of men”.
But the problem, according to presidential hopefuls Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and others,
is that in the last fifty years, these judges have been serving way too long.
And presidents don’t have as much say in the federal courts as they used to.
Indeed, from 1970 to 2006, the average tenure of Supreme Court justices was about 26 years,
compared to about 15 years in the eras before.
Experts suggest this is due to increased general life expectancy and younger appointments.
Also, some point out that federal judges purposefully postpone retirement until a president from
their own party assumes office.
And that’s a very partisan, “government of MEN” thing to do.
Both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia have made it clear that they only intend
to leave when they could be replaced by someone with similar views.
Otherwise, they believe that their years of work on the court will be undone.
So is it worth it to give life terms to federal judges in a democracy, where they remain virtually
unaccountable to the public?
Life terms are supposed to encourage non-partisanship, but studies suggest that justices often vote
along partisan party lines.
Additionally, if legislators attempt to give term limits to federal judges, who would preside
over the obligatory court battle?
All these questions have been getting more attention recently.
No doubt the next presidential candidate will hinge a part of his or her campaign on this
issue.
The supreme court in recent years, has been more biased than ever.
To hear how it got this way, check out our video here.
Thanks for watching TestTube, hit that subscribe button on your way out please!