Where Does Our Constitution Grant "Lifetime" Tenure to Supreme Court Judges?

Few citizens today debate the current practice of appointing judges to "lifetime" tours in our nation's Supreme Court.  Yet, this practice certainly is not specified in our Constitution.  Article Three, Section 1 clearly states that they "shall hold their offices during good behavior" and that they will not have their pay reduced while in that position.
So where did "lifetime" appointments come from?

There is little doubt that our founders thought it very important to insulate these judges from political pressures and popular movements that might otherwise cause them to make decisions based on those pressures and movements.  If we were to be a nation of laws, the founders felt strongly that our judges had to be free to decide each case on its merits under those laws and in accordance with our Constitution What would make them more independent than a long tenure without the danger of having their earnings negatively affected if someone else did not like their reasoning?  In addition, the pay protection seemed like a good thing back then - and now.

But did a long tenure have to be one that lasted a lifetime?
In general, average lifetimes were somewhat shorter one and two centuries ago.  Also, the population was much smaller which probably meant there were fewer individuals with the requisite knowledge and experience from which candidates could be identified.  Given these and other circumstances in years past, maybe the practice of lifetime appointments seemed like a natural thing to set up.

On the other hand, while we talk a great deal about the "balance of powers" between the three branches of government, is there much doubt just how much "power" there is in these judges' positions today?  The fact is that they are actually the "referee" with final decision-making authority over the "game" where our Legislature and Executive branches are the "players". So, when we see how this kind of power and influence can affect our other governmental officials, is it really a "good" thing to invest in anyone for a lifetime?

Many of us would think twelve years should be considered a long term.  Some might think a longer time while others would consider a lesser period meets that criteria.  In any case, so long as the earnings part continued while in office (and after), why would some specified time limit not meet the need for a judge's independence?

What do you think? Tell us here or at: affirm1776@hartcom.net and check out our website, http://www.affirm1776.org/.

Posted by AFFIRM1776 at 11:34 AM

 

Should the United States Get Out of the UN?

Let's face two important facts.
1) Our nation pays vastly more of the costs of the United Nations than any other member country, and
2) Far too often far too many of those other member nations "use" the organization as a platform to insult and work against us.

It should not be surprising therefore that we frequently hear citizens express their opinion that we should "Get the US Out of the UN"!

At the same time, many of us sense that there are some worthwhile programs within this worldwide body. Even though we know there is real corruption sometimes practiced, and there is sheer hypocrisy in so many of their "resolutions", sufficient value probably exists in having such a forum where all nations can assemble and interact. Our founders in 1776 certainly recognized the necessity of dealing effectively with other nations.

Maybe there is another way for us to "solve" this dilemma.

What would you think about an idea such as this one?
a) Let's stay with the United Nations as an active member, but greatly reduce the amount of money we provide them in funding. We might also consider "inviting" them to find a new world headquarters location that is not in the United States.  (This might ease somewhat the "dirtiness" we often feel when having to put up with allowing a petty tyrant coming onto our soil to speak his or her particular version of duplicity.)
b) With some of the dollars we save in "a" above, let's organize and fund a new organization of the world's nations who truly grant their people the right to chooose their own governments by voting in fair elections. Membership in this new "United Free Nations" would be limited to countries who continue to give their citizens this privilege, and would fluctuate up and down as fresh governments are created or old ones "fall" in coups, etc.  (In this case, a headquarters in the United States - say the "old" UN buildings - might be more agreeable to a lot of us.)

What do you think? Tell us at affirm1776@hartcom.net, and check out our website, http://www.affirm1776.org/.