Room for Debate

In a democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour.” In practice this language means they serve for life absent voluntary retirement or impeachment. Were we to draft the Constitution today, we would be wise to reconsider this provision.

The article argues for getting rid of life terms for Justices of the Supreme Court.  The writer uses the example of Obamacare as a decision, made by the Supreme Court, that will be obsolete in the not-to-distant future.  According to the writer, for many reasons, including: life expectancy, outlasting of lucidity, and an antiquated system of choosing justices, there is a need to seriously consider how we go about selecting who serve on the high court and how long their tenure.  The writer acknowledges the need to maintain independence on the court but believes there is a better way of doing things.

I chose the paragraph, initiating this post, because I strongly agree with the statement “No one person should wield so much power” holds true not just for Justices of the Supreme Court, but for judges overall.  I have had occasion to witness the proceedings in a court room and was left with remembering 1 Corinthians 2:15 which states “But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man”.  I believe no person should have the right to sit in judgement on another person.  Having said that, in consideration that this is our system of government and there needs to be laws to govern behaviors, I accept the role of judges in our society and have no problem with Justices of the Supreme Court within the current system.  There will be times when a justice may outlive their usefulness, but history shows that most will voluntarily leave the court.  All things considered, I believe our system is the best.