Supreme Court Justices Should Have Term Limits

The title of the article caught my eye and I read it and felt its truth. Give judges terms, not lifetime appointments appeared in the Wednesday, August 5, 2015 edition of The Detroit News. It was written by Doug Bandow, a graduate of Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is a Public Policy Think Tank dedicated to the principles of individual liberty. Bandow wrote “It is time to impose accountability while preserving independence.” “Judges are supposed to play a limited though vital role – interpreting, not transforming the law”. “Limiting the term of office for Supreme Court justices from a life time event to a finite fixed terms number of years, would simultaneously achieve both objectives.”

I support Bandow’s position that we need to reign in the Supreme Court’s increasingly common practice of making public policy instead of judging the constitutionality of the issues brought before it. Our nation is a nation of laws and there is a specific written plan in place to create, manage and verify those laws. The name of the plan is The Constitution of the United States. It is clear to me that the Congressional branch exists to create necessary laws. The Executive branch exists to execute the laws created by Congress. The Supreme Court exists to judge the constitutionality of laws. I also support the Cato Institute’s efforts because I believe it is our possession of individual liberties that keeps our nation from jumping off the track.

Why do the nine member justices forming the Supreme Court find it so difficult to state that a specific issue submitted to the court for examination is either supported by the Constitution or it is not? Surely, “partisan leanings” is not the issue. If the issue brought before the court is judged to be supported by the Constitution then it is lawful. If it is not supported by the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. The court should simply determine exactly why or how it failed to meet the constitutionality test and send it back to congress or to its original source to be revised in a manner determined to be acceptable under the framework of the Constitution. I have yet to discover anything written in the Constitution that gives the justices the prerogative to change the meaning or the intent of the words used to create the law or issue submitted by others who are not of the court.

Article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States defines the judicial power of the United States. There are several capitalized words in the copied Constitutional language below which might appear to you to be incorrectly capitalized but they are shown here as they appear in the Constitution. Please note this is the section which Doug Bandow’s article addresses.  There are, in fact, two more sections in Article 3 of the Constitution. Section 2 lists the extent of judicial authority extended to the court and section 3 defines Treason. Finally, note in line two of section 1 shown below that only “Congress may ordain and establish” other courts.

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their office during good behavior, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during the Continuance in Office."

Did you know? The two word "Good behavior" phrase has been historically interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives. Justice William Orville Douglas from Yakima, Washington holds the record for continuous service. He served an astounding 36 years and 209 days from April 17, 1939 to November 12, 1975.

Did you know? Supreme Court justices may be impeached if they do not maintain “Good behavior”. In our republic, all impeachments are initiated in the House of Representatives and all are tried in the Senate. In our entire history, Samuel Chase holds the distinction of being the only Supreme Court justice to have been impeached. He was impeached by the United States House of Representatives on March 12, 1804 for allegedly letting his “partisan leanings” affect his Court decisions. Chase was acquitted by the Senate on March 1, 1805.