March 2010 Issue

The Supreme Court: In For Life? 

The U.S. Supreme Court was created in accordance with Article III, section 1, of the Constitution, which states that 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 Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 set the rules and the Supreme Court first assembled on February 2, 1790.

According to The Judiciary Act, the court was to consist of one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The number of Associate Justices changed six times, before settling on the present total of eight in 1869. The President appoints all new Justices, who must then be approved by the Senate.

Statute dictates that a Term of the Supreme Court begins on the first Monday in October. Sessions generally continue until late June or early July. Each term is divided into “sittings” and “recesses”, which alternate at approximately two-week intervals. Sittings are when the Justices hear cases and deliver opinions. As many as 24 cases can be argued in one sitting. During recesses, Justices consider Court business, study forthcoming cases, and write opinions. Along with these duties, each week the Justices evaluate more than 130 petitions in order to determine which cases will be granted review.

Since its inception, Supreme Court Justices have been handed a lifetime position, with no restrictions on health or retirement age. According to the Supreme Court’s website www.supremecourtus.gov, To ensure an independent judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures, the Constitution provides that judges serve during “good Behavior”, which has generally meant life terms. Translated, this does not necessarily mean that it is the Justices’ Constitutional right to have a lifetime position.

In 1790, when the first Supreme Court convened, the average lifespan was around 56 years. Half of all Americans were under 16 years old. At a time when adults were in short supply and life expectancy was limited, it made sense to set no restraints on the term of a Supreme Court Justice. Many died within a decade of their appointment.

Today in the U.S., the average life expectancy is 77 years old. The median age has risen from 16 to 35. We are in no short supply of adults willing and able to serve.

In an ongoing poll, www.Newsvine.com poses the question: Should Supreme Court Justices be appointed to serve life terms? As of this writing, 48.5% answered a resounding “No”. 39.9% answered “Yes” and 11.6% don’t know. Clearly, the majority of Americans do not agree with the idea of handing a lifetime pass for this position.

The following is a list of our current Justices, along with their date of birth and date of appointment:

As you can see, our oldest Supreme Court Justice is about to turn 90 years old. John Paul Stevens has served 35 years and might very well die before he decides to retire. Clarence Thomas was appointed in 1991 at the age of 43. He has already served 19 years and could easily serve another 40.

Should any position entitle a person to a lifetime pass? Most people in their 80s are not even working at Wal-Mart, much less handing down decisions that could alter our country’s legal system. Should we start considering age and the possibility of mental decline?

The decline in general cognitive skills is a hallmark of normal aging. Cognition is a combination of skills that includes: Attention, Learning, Memory, Judgment, and Language. A healthy, active person might live well into his or her 70s with no sign of cognitive decline. Many experience at least some impairment. Others show extreme dysfunction. Do we know into which category our Supreme Court Justices fall?

The U.S. Supreme Court claims that the Constitution provides no restrictions on term-length in order to protect the Court from partisan politics. However, each of us is equipped with our own personal biases, which, in a sense, makes for partisan politics. Once a Justice is appointed, he or she takes those biases into the court, intentionally or not. By handing out lifetime positions, aren’t we also handing an individual unlimited power? I can’t help but wonder if handing any one person a lifetime position makes for good politics.

Questions? Comments? I'd love to hear from you! Contact me at: Darcia@quietfurybooks.com

To subscribe to the text-only version of this newsletter, send an email to newsletters@quietfurybooks.com with "Subscribe" in the subject.