Today I found an interesting article that
relates called Is a lifetime appointment for Federal judges logical? by Cody Jones, which is a critique to the article Life tenure for federal judges: Should it be abolished? by Edward Lazarus. Cody Jones point that the current method through which justices are selected is flawed, and the government of US needs to think about a solution. Cody's critiqued is directed to a liberal audience, since his comments tend to be progressive.
Cody says that judges should not be appointed for life. He argues that the current system closes the doors for judges that may be more qualified for the job. He also says that judges are biased (which I do not believe they are) because they are appointed by the president to represent the interest of the party in power and help with the presidential agenda. He also points that life tenure gives the judges a lot of power that makes them complacent. Cody proposes that the judges should be appointed by the mutual agreement of congress and the president, instead of the president and approved by the senate, so the judges are not biased. He proposes that the job tenure should range anywhere from 10-20 years because this will allow the constant entrance of new judges and will avoid complacence.
In my opinion this is a very complicated topic with no evident answer. I agree with his statement that this is a very powerful branch where people wants the more talented judges in the country, if they are the ones who are going to approve the law. I particularly believe that this is the most powerful branch, even with more power than congress, since the judicial branch can overturn any law by declaring it unconstitutional (I see it as a very passive aggressive branch). However, contrary to Cody, and I surprised myself about having such a conservative point of view about this topic, I believe that justices have to have live tenure in office, and I do not believe that the House should be included. A constant flow of judges may avoid all the things that Cody mentioned, but it also bring inexperienced people who had not dealt with law or cases at national level, with such a long term consequences. Part of being a good judge is having a lot of experience, and 10-20 years is nothing in this kind of career. I believe that judges may get a little complacent, but not at the point of not carrying about what they are doing, since they can be impeached and lose their job.
The reason why the House should not be included dates back to the writing of the Constitution. Only the senate has equal state representation (2 representatives) and they hold more years in office, so they are the only ones who should have an opinion in this matter. The House changes too often, the representatives have unequal votes, and those legislators are interested in other matters. History has proved that when the House has a majority party that is against the presidential party, nothing gets done. It would be the end of US if the only stable branch that the country has, and serves as a moderator, gets involved in all the conflicts between the Executive and the Legislative branches.
The only thing that I do not like about the current system is that judges rule about what is fair for the US people, but citizens have not say so about who is placed in office. However, I understand that if people voted to elect a justice, the branch will end like the House, which legislators' only care about being reelected and do only small scale decisions that will pay them with reelection. Even if it takes us (the people) to vote for a representative, that votes for the president, that then appoints the justices, that is better than us voting for then and getting a truly biased judicial branch.
In my opinion this is a very complicated topic with no evident answer. I agree with his statement that this is a very powerful branch where people wants the more talented judges in the country, if they are the ones who are going to approve the law. I particularly believe that this is the most powerful branch, even with more power than congress, since the judicial branch can overturn any law by declaring it unconstitutional (I see it as a very passive aggressive branch). However, contrary to Cody, and I surprised myself about having such a conservative point of view about this topic, I believe that justices have to have live tenure in office, and I do not believe that the House should be included. A constant flow of judges may avoid all the things that Cody mentioned, but it also bring inexperienced people who had not dealt with law or cases at national level, with such a long term consequences. Part of being a good judge is having a lot of experience, and 10-20 years is nothing in this kind of career. I believe that judges may get a little complacent, but not at the point of not carrying about what they are doing, since they can be impeached and lose their job.
The reason why the House should not be included dates back to the writing of the Constitution. Only the senate has equal state representation (2 representatives) and they hold more years in office, so they are the only ones who should have an opinion in this matter. The House changes too often, the representatives have unequal votes, and those legislators are interested in other matters. History has proved that when the House has a majority party that is against the presidential party, nothing gets done. It would be the end of US if the only stable branch that the country has, and serves as a moderator, gets involved in all the conflicts between the Executive and the Legislative branches.
The only thing that I do not like about the current system is that judges rule about what is fair for the US people, but citizens have not say so about who is placed in office. However, I understand that if people voted to elect a justice, the branch will end like the House, which legislators' only care about being reelected and do only small scale decisions that will pay them with reelection. Even if it takes us (the people) to vote for a representative, that votes for the president, that then appoints the justices, that is better than us voting for then and getting a truly biased judicial branch.
No comments:
Post a Comment