Supreme court justices......

[chefIL11]

Why are supreme court justices appointed for life? This is a question on a final I had, but I couldn’t seem to find the answer.

[5cents]

Because it is in the constitution http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html:

Article. III. Section. 1.
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 Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Note that it is not only for supreme court judges, but for inferior courts (i.e. all other federal judges) as well. The appoint is for life only if they behave themselves. What happens if they don’t behave themselves?

Article II Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[5cents]

As for why the rule is written into the constition, it is presumably there so that judges can make difficult, unpopular, but judicially sound decisions without fear of losing their jobs.

[Captain_Amazing]

And as to why it’s in the Constitution, the founders wanted federal judges to be impartial. With a lifetime appointment, the judges wouldn’t have to worry about acting according to popular opinion in order to get reelected.

[brianmelendez]

*Originally posted by Johnnyt27 *
**Why are supreme court justices appointed for life? This is a question on a final I had, but I couldn’t seem to find the answer. **

Alexander Hamilton set out the Framers’ view in The Federalist, No. 78:

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

…

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.

Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government. The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution.

[Markxxx]

I always considered the re-election issue to be somewhat specious. Maybe not in the 1700s but certainly today.

By saying justices need to be able to make unpopular decisions without fear of not being elected again is saying these justices are of such low moral character that they would rather DO what is wrong than lose their job.

If I had to be elected every 4 years I would still do what was RIGHT regardless. Because I have morals and scrupels(Sp?) and if I wasn’t re-elected so be it.

Especially now that justices would make far more money in a non governemental position than they make sitting on a court.

So, at least today, it isn’t about holding a job. Frankly I’ll end this mini-rant by saying I don’t want anyone on the Supream Court or any other court that can’t stick by his convictions even if it means losing their jobs. I have quit jobs rather than do things I knew were wrong. We wouldn’t have the Enron (and others) mess if people did what was right instead of fearing for their jobs.

I think the real reason is that the justices can, in effect, write law and by sitting for what may be a generation, the law can’t be changed back within say 4 years. That time people will get used to it. And the laws will then stick.