CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
5,230
edits
Supreme Court of the United States: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian"
m (Text replacement - "USA Today" to "USA Today") |
m (Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian") |
||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
===Tenure=== | ===Tenure=== | ||
Lifetime tenure of justices can only be found for US federal judges and the State of Rhode Island's Supreme Court justices, with all other democratic nations and all other US states having set term limits or mandatory retirement ages.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ziblatt |first1=Daniel |author-link1=Daniel Ziblatt |last2=Levitsky |first2=Steven |author-link2=Steven Levitsky |date=September 5, 2023 |title=How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230920224356/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |archive-date=September 20, 2023 |access-date=September 20, 2023 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref> [[Larry Sabato]] wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."<ref name="tws23oct16" /> [[Sanford Levinson]] has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.<ref name="tws10oct12">{{cite news |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=September 10, 2007 |title=New Focus on the Effects of Life Tenure |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100726224409/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html |archive-date=July 26, 2010 |access-date=October 10, 2009 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> [[James MacGregor Burns]] stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."<ref name="tws27oct304">{{cite news |last=Kakutani |first=Michiko |author-link=Michiko Kakutani |date=July 6, 2009 |title=Appointees Who Really Govern America |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07kaku.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512175527/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07kaku.html |archive-date=May 12, 2011 |access-date=October 27, 2009 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> Proposals to solve these problems include [[term limit]]s for justices, as proposed by Levinson<ref name="tws10octxx">{{cite news |last=Levinson |first=Sanford |author-link=Sanford Levinson |date=February 9, 2009 |title=Supreme court prognosis – Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130906035306/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg |archive-date=September 6, 2013 |access-date=October 10, 2009 |work= | Lifetime tenure of justices can only be found for US federal judges and the State of Rhode Island's Supreme Court justices, with all other democratic nations and all other US states having set term limits or mandatory retirement ages.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ziblatt |first1=Daniel |author-link1=Daniel Ziblatt |last2=Levitsky |first2=Steven |author-link2=Steven Levitsky |date=September 5, 2023 |title=How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230920224356/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |archive-date=September 20, 2023 |access-date=September 20, 2023 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref> [[Larry Sabato]] wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."<ref name="tws23oct16" /> [[Sanford Levinson]] has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.<ref name="tws10oct12">{{cite news |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=September 10, 2007 |title=New Focus on the Effects of Life Tenure |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100726224409/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html |archive-date=July 26, 2010 |access-date=October 10, 2009 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> [[James MacGregor Burns]] stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."<ref name="tws27oct304">{{cite news |last=Kakutani |first=Michiko |author-link=Michiko Kakutani |date=July 6, 2009 |title=Appointees Who Really Govern America |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07kaku.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512175527/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07kaku.html |archive-date=May 12, 2011 |access-date=October 27, 2009 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> Proposals to solve these problems include [[term limit]]s for justices, as proposed by Levinson<ref name="tws10octxx">{{cite news |last=Levinson |first=Sanford |author-link=Sanford Levinson |date=February 9, 2009 |title=Supreme court prognosis – Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130906035306/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg |archive-date=September 6, 2013 |access-date=October 10, 2009 |work=The Guardian |location=Manchester}}</ref> and Sabato<ref name="tws23oct16" /><ref>See also Arthur D. Hellman, "Reining in the Supreme Court: Are Term Limits the Answer?", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., ''Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices'' ([[Carolina Academic Press]], 2006), p. 291.</ref> and a mandatory retirement age proposed by [[Richard Allen Epstein|Richard Epstein]],<ref>[[Richard Epstein]], "Mandatory Retirement for Supreme Court Justices", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., ''Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices'' ([[Carolina Academic Press]], 2006), p. 415.</ref> among others.<ref>Brian Opeskin, "Models of Judicial Tenure: Reconsidering Life Limits, Age Limits and Term Limits for Judges", ''Oxford Journal of Legal Studies'' 2015 35: 627–663.</ref> [[Alexander Hamilton]] in ''[[Federalist 78]]'' argued that one benefit of lifetime tenure was that, "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."<ref name="tws28oct707">{{cite news |last=Hamilton |first=Alexander |author-link=Alexander Hamilton |date=June 14, 1788 |title=The Federalist No. 78 |url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100111055502/http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm |archive-date=January 11, 2010 |access-date=October 28, 2009 |publisher=Independent Journal |quote=and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}[[File:Inside the United States Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|alt=The interior of the United States Supreme Court|The interior of the United States Supreme Court]] | ||
[[Good Behavior Clause|Article Three, Section 1]] of the Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior", which is understood to mean that they may serve for the remainder of their lives, until death; furthermore, the phrase is generally interpreted to mean that the only way justices can be removed from office is by [[United States Congress|Congress]] via the [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeachment process]]. The Framers of the Constitution chose good behavior tenure to limit the power to remove justices and to ensure [[judicial independence]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Prakash |first1=Saikrishna |author-link1=Saikrishna Prakash |first2=Steven D. |last2=Smith |title=(Mis)Understanding Good-Behavior Tenure |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=116 |issue=1 |date=2006 |pages=159–169 |doi=10.2307/20455716 |jstor=20455716 |s2cid=52212217}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Article III, Section One |first1=Richard W. |last1=Garnett |first2=David A. |last2=Strauss |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 |location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |publisher=National Constitution Center |access-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429081830/https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=How the Federal Courts Are Organized: Can a federal judge be fired? |url=http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/A783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214?opendocument |publisher=[[Federal Judicial Center]]. fjc.gov |access-date=March 18, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120915143136/http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=%2Ffederal%2Fcourts.nsf%2Fpage%2FA783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214%3Fopendocument |archive-date=September 15, 2012}}</ref> No constitutional mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.<ref name="hufpost">{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html |title=Anticipating the Incapacitated Justice |last=Appel |first=Jacob M. |date=August 22, 2009 |work=The Huffington Post |access-date=August 23, 2009 |archive-date=August 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090827005222/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html |url-status=live}}</ref> The only justice ever to be impeached was [[Samuel Chase]], in 1804. The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] adopted eight articles of impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate, and remained in office until his death in 1811.<ref name=SCchase>{{cite web |title=Impeachment Trial of Justice Samuel Chase, 1804–05 |url=https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm |publisher=Senate Historical Office |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-date=May 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503234655/https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Two justices, [[William O. Douglas]] and [[Abe Fortas]] were subjected to hearings from the Judiciary Committee, with Douglas being the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970 and Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969. On July 10, 2024, Representative [[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez|Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez]] filed Articles of Impeachment against justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Samuel Alito]], citing their "widely documented financial and personal entanglements."<ref name=Impeach>{{Cite web |date=Jul 10, 2024 |title=Ocasio-Cortez Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Justice Thomas and Justice Alito |url=https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240710224618/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and |archive-date=Jul 10, 2024 |access-date=Jul 10, 2024}}</ref> | [[Good Behavior Clause|Article Three, Section 1]] of the Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior", which is understood to mean that they may serve for the remainder of their lives, until death; furthermore, the phrase is generally interpreted to mean that the only way justices can be removed from office is by [[United States Congress|Congress]] via the [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeachment process]]. The Framers of the Constitution chose good behavior tenure to limit the power to remove justices and to ensure [[judicial independence]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Prakash |first1=Saikrishna |author-link1=Saikrishna Prakash |first2=Steven D. |last2=Smith |title=(Mis)Understanding Good-Behavior Tenure |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=116 |issue=1 |date=2006 |pages=159–169 |doi=10.2307/20455716 |jstor=20455716 |s2cid=52212217}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Article III, Section One |first1=Richard W. |last1=Garnett |first2=David A. |last2=Strauss |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 |location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |publisher=National Constitution Center |access-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429081830/https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=How the Federal Courts Are Organized: Can a federal judge be fired? |url=http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/A783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214?opendocument |publisher=[[Federal Judicial Center]]. fjc.gov |access-date=March 18, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120915143136/http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=%2Ffederal%2Fcourts.nsf%2Fpage%2FA783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214%3Fopendocument |archive-date=September 15, 2012}}</ref> No constitutional mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.<ref name="hufpost">{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html |title=Anticipating the Incapacitated Justice |last=Appel |first=Jacob M. |date=August 22, 2009 |work=The Huffington Post |access-date=August 23, 2009 |archive-date=August 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090827005222/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html |url-status=live}}</ref> The only justice ever to be impeached was [[Samuel Chase]], in 1804. The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] adopted eight articles of impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate, and remained in office until his death in 1811.<ref name=SCchase>{{cite web |title=Impeachment Trial of Justice Samuel Chase, 1804–05 |url=https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm |publisher=Senate Historical Office |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-date=May 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503234655/https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Two justices, [[William O. Douglas]] and [[Abe Fortas]] were subjected to hearings from the Judiciary Committee, with Douglas being the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970 and Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969. On July 10, 2024, Representative [[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez|Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez]] filed Articles of Impeachment against justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Samuel Alito]], citing their "widely documented financial and personal entanglements."<ref name=Impeach>{{Cite web |date=Jul 10, 2024 |title=Ocasio-Cortez Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Justice Thomas and Justice Alito |url=https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240710224618/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and |archive-date=Jul 10, 2024 |access-date=Jul 10, 2024}}</ref> | ||