Could Term Limits Ease Fights Over Supreme Court
Nominees?
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has
set off
one of the most contentious battles ever
over a Supreme Court seat. Republicans who control the Senate say they will not
consider anyone who President Obama presents for their confirmation before the
election, including his nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland. Some say if the
justices’ life
tenure was ended , each confirmation fight would be less
fraught
and contentious. Should Supreme Court terms be limited?
* justice = 판사, 재판관/ term limit = 임기 제한/ ease = 덜어주다/ set off =
(일련의 사건·과정을) 유발하다[일으키다]/ contentious = 논쟁을 초래할/ confirmation = 승인/ life tenure =
종신직/ fraught = 걱정스러운
대법원 (판사) 임기는 제한 되어야 하나요?
1. A Fixed Term Would Lower the Heat
An 18-year
fixed term with regularized vacancies every two years would let each president
appoint two justices per term.
2. Term
Limits Would Create Their Own Problems
Term-limited justices
might aspire to political office, or positions in business, and these
aspirations might shape their judicial decisions.
Sample
Essay
Supreme Court Term
Limits Would Create Their Own Problems
Since Justice
Scalia’s death, the role of justices’ life tenure in amplifying the
politicization of the nomination process has been getting more consideration.
When judicial seats are less likely to turn over, the importance of each
appointment may seem especially acute. Term limits, which most state high courts
use, would assure that Supreme Court vacancies would become available at a
predictable pace, perhaps avoiding the politicking and gridlock that has
accompanied the nomination process in recent years.
While all of this
sounds appealing, there are other concerns to weigh. As an initial matter,
replacing life tenure with term limits would likely require a constitutional
amendment, by itself a daunting and difficult process.
Leaving aside the
difficulties of the amendment process, there are ethical concerns that counsel
against term limits. Term-limited justices might aspire to other political
offices, or positions in business, and these post-term aspirations might shape
their judicial decision-making on the court. For all its problems, life tenure
was intended to insulate judges — and their decisions — from these pressures.
And while we might reasonably worry about the mental acuity of elderly
justices, many justices hit their jurisprudential stride later in their careers.
As Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn argue, justices’ views do not remain fixed, but
rather evolve over the course of their careers. This is hardly surprising.
Developing a judicial philosophy and an interpretive approach can take time —
perhaps longer than the 18 years that is typically floated as the optimal time
frame for judicial term limits.
If, as Martin and Quinn argue, juridical
drift is the rule, rather than the exception, the assurance of life tenure may
mean that a justice will be able to take a longitudinal approach to her
decisions, steadily evolving over time. In a term-limited environment, justices
might feel immediate pressure to identify and enact a distinct interpretative
approach, stymieing the deliberative and organic growth that lengthier tenures
could afford.
Term-limited justices undoubtedly will recognize that
their time on the court — and their time with a particular group of justices —
is finite. This too may shape their decision-making. Eager to initiate a
doctrinal shift or reverse a particular precedent, but worried about the
changing composition of a term-limited Court, justices may be inclined to make
lurching shifts from left to right and back again within a relatively short
period of time. This kind of jurisprudential volatility is completely at odds
with our precedent-based legal system and its vision of slow and steady
doctrinal development.