Braden Pickett

Dr. Stephanie A. Slocum-Schaffer

PSCI 200

20 April 2019

Life Tenure Debate

Since the Constitution was instilled as the basis for the democracy of the United States in

March of 1789, life tenure for Supreme Court justices has been the norm. In recent decades there

has been chatter of eliminating life tenure and instead having term limits or a retirement age.

Their reasoning is that the concept is outdated and allowing for politics to be spread to this

seemingly untouchable branch. Life tenure for Supreme Court Justices should remain as is

because it helps to preserve the power of the judiciary, keep neutrality, and to preserve the

firmness and independence of the Supreme Court.

When the Framers of the Constitution drew up the structure for the government, they

formed and balanced it in a way that Congress had the most power, followed by the Executive,

and leaving the Judiciary with the least. Therefore, it is critical to preserve the little power that

they have. The power of the Judicial branch is so limited because they are the furthest from the

people due to the appointment process, their appearance, their privacy, and life tenure. It is

because they are so separated that their power is restricted. The two biggest and most easily

abused powers are the power of the sword and power of the purse. Neither of these two powers

are given to the Judiciary. They also don’t have the power to enforce their own rulings which

means they must rely completely on their image to get the people to go along with and follow

their rulings. The Supreme Court has a very prestigious image which they must keep to maintain

the respect stated above. Removing life tenure takes away a part of what sets the Supreme Court
on such a high pedestal. If the Supreme Court has term limits and are elected they become

vulnerable to the public. They may start to make decisions to impress the people based on

promises and points they made during their appointment. With out this respect they will have no

way to ensure that people respect and follow their rulings. Losing their respect will break down

any authority that the Judicial branch has. Letting the public have influence on Supreme Court

justices will take a major hit on the partial immunity from partisan pressure, which leads me to

my next point.

In a perfect democracy, the Supreme Court would be entirely separate from the politics

that encircle the rest of the government. Today the president handles the appointment of the

Supreme Court Justices and then the Senate approves them. Eliminating life tenure allows for the

possibility of elections or reappointments. The way the system works today, the justices on the

Supreme Court are focused on making their decisions based on the interpretation of the

Constitution. Implementing an election or reappointment would offer an incentive for Justices to

vote a certain way to please either the people or the president to try and secure another term. The

Constitution states in Article lll Section 1, that judges, “shall hold their offices during good

behavior,” (S.M., 2018) this implies that Supreme Court Justices shall remain in office as long as

they do nothing to contradict that statement. They were granted this power so that they would be

able to make decisions free from any partisan pressure. There have been 113 Supreme Court

Justices “and only one of them has ever been impeached.” (Nix, 2018) This shows that the

Supreme Court justices act in good faith and don’t have a problem with being scandalous, so this

couldn’t be used as a reason to eliminate life tenure. The biggest characteristic of the Supreme

Court is that they represent neutrality in that they base their rulings solely on their interpretation

on the Constitution. If elections or reappointments are introduced to the Supreme Court system,
there would be a definite increase of partisan pressure. This would have a negative impact on the

respect that the Supreme Court needs to ensure their rulings are followed.

The Supreme Court has sat on such a prestigious pedestal since the ratification of the

Constitution. This was done in order to help the Supreme Court keep their respect so that the

people would follow their rulings. Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 78 that he believed

the Judiciary, “is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its

coordinate branches, nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as

permanency in office.” It is because the Judiciary is independent that it is able to function

properly. However, if we take away the one thing, life tenure, that separates and gives the branch

more power, then the judicial branch will lose a large part of their power. Taking power from a

branch that already has the least of three will disable it from functioning like it should. Justices

will lose that “firmness” as they will start to change their views and opinions to please people in

attempt to get reappointed. This is because, “Without job security judges might feel obligated to

bow to the wishes of the President, Congress, or the public, rather than confining their work

strictly to the questions of the constitution,” (Hamilton, 2001). This would again lead to the

influence of partisan pressures in the court room. Without the prestigious image that the Supreme

Court is supposed to hold, they have no power to enforce their rulings and they could lose all of

their power completely. This will then cause an imbalance between the three branches and could

lead to a collapse of the whole government.

It is vital to maintain the stature of the government and the judicial branch that we do not

instigate a power struggle. It is true the 58% of people support term limits with elections, (Nash,

2018), but this would only be problematic. The people want a say because they do not like

having no say in something political. The branch was made so separate for a reason. That reason
being that they were given such little power because they were separated from the people.

Eliminating life tenure would mean a long amendment process would have to take place which

would induce more partisan conflict. Due to the life tenure securing the power of the judiciary,

neutrality, and the firmness and independence of the Supreme Court it is not necessary to get rid

of it or to install any new type system to the system.

 Works Cited

Hamilton, A. (2001). Federalist Papers NO.78.

Nix, E. (2018, October 28). History Stroies. Retrieved from History.com:

https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached

S.M. (2018, July 4). Why Supreme Court JUstices Serve Such Long Terms. Retrieved from The

Economist: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/07/04/why-

supreme-court-justices-serve-such-long-terms