Acting in a decision to make the law (ex. Roe v Wade)
Only acting if there is a clear injury or violation of the Constitution
Appointments by the President Confirmations by the Senate
Senate “Advice & Consent” - SCOTUS appointments are more likely to be scrutinized by the Senate
Senatorial Courtesy Appointing a lower judge based on that state’s senator’s opinion
Getting “Borked” To prevent confirmation by attack a nominee’s past beliefs
Clarence Thomas & Anita Hill Thomas was confirmed despite sexual misconduct allegation
Merrick Garland Outgoing democratic president v Republican Senate
“Nuclear Option” Delaying confirmation through a filibuster
Justice Department An executive department that enforces criminal law (FBI, DEA)
Impeachment & Oversight Federal judges can be impeached for bad behavior
Article III: STANDING Congress determines requirements for a case to go to court
A logical, but arguable, opinion
Facts that support the claim
The link between claim and evidence
After examining the problems of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, it is clear that having a national judicial system is necessary. While the necessity of having a judiciary branch is not all that controversial, some people have raised questions about the way it will be structured and what kinds of powers it will have, so this is what this paper will focus on.
There are a few key items to discuss regarding the makeup of a federal judiciary. First is how judges will be chosen. Second is how long judges will be allowed to be on the federal court…
The second problem, judge tenure, is focused on how long judges should hold their office, how they will be paid, and how to keep them from becoming tyrannical.
According to the Constitution, federal judges are allowed to hold their office “during good behavior” the definition of which should follow the model put forth by most state constitutions. There are some who are opposed to this definition, but they are just being difficult. This method of judicial tenure is one of the most important components of modern government. In a monarchy, it protects the people from a powerful ruler, and in a republic it protects the people from having too strong a legislative body. Having lifetime appointments ensures a constant and reliable implementation of laws.
When you consider the different branches of government, it is clear that the judiciary is naturally the “least dangerous”. The Executive Branch appoints officers and controls the army. The Legislative Branch controls appropriations and also creates and implements the laws by which citizens are governed. The Judiciary Branch cannot expressly make anyone do anything, rather they can only pass judgments, and depend on cooperation from the other branches to enact these judgments.
This analysis has a few important consequences. It proves first that the judiciary is without a doubt the weakest of the three branches, and that it needs the other two to act. It also proves that while sometimes the court can oppress the individual, it is incapable of oppressing the general population. As long as the judiciary is separate from the other two branches, it has limited power….
There have been some questions about the judiciary’s authority to strike down laws made by Congress, and whether that makes it the more powerful branch. This argument suggests that if the Judicial Branch has this power over the Legislative Branch, then it is more powerful. This argument should be discussed further. Congress derives its power from the Constitution, and so any laws that it makes contrary to the guidelines of the Constitution are invalid. If not, the representatives will have more power than was rightly given to them by the people.
The Constitution acts as the fundamental law of the nation, and it is the job of the judiciary to interpret its meaning as well as the meaning of laws made by Congress. If there is a difference in opinion between a law and the Constitution, it is the job of the courts to side with the Constitution.
The use of judicial discretion differs in the case of Constitutional laws and laws written by legislators. While the newer of two laws would be preferred in the above scenario, because the Constitution has greater authority than Congress, any laws made that contradict the Constitution will be struck down by the courts.
Judges need to be independent to protect the Constitution and the people from power seekers and oppressors. While I’m sure proponents of the Constitution would never oppose the general idea of republican government, it is possible that a representative may have a majority of his constituents who wishes to change or get rid of the Constitution, or do something contrary to it. It is clear that legislators are more influenced by their constituents than judges, who are more equipped to protect the Constitution by virtue of their independence.
This is not the only reason why judges should be independent. They also need to protect against occasional societal problems. Sometimes unjust or biased laws can oppress a group, and in this case it is the job of judges to moderate the effects of the law. This helps not only to mend injustices in society, but also to let Congress know that any unjust laws they may want to pass will likely only be struck down by the court. This influence might not be realized by many, but it has already stopped the creation of some dangerous state laws.
If judges held their office for a temporary period, it cannot be expected that they would protect the Constitution and strike down unjust laws in a completely unbiased and uniform manner.
But there is even a more important reason to make judicial appointments permanent. There are very many laws required to promote a free government, and in seeking to secure the liberties of every member of the United States, the code of laws grew large. There are not many men that have sufficient knowledge and skills to learn the law and even fewer who are also virtuous enough to apply it justly. These men who are qualified are naturally going to have prestigious jobs already, and would not be inclined to give these up to sit on the federal judicial bench without a certain level of guaranteed prestige and job security.
We NEED a court
The question is not why we need it but rather how it should look
There are some who are opposed to this definition, but they are just being difficult.
go off Hamilton
They should serve for as long as they are good, it ensures a consistent implementation of law
The judiciary branch isn’t very powerful / dangerous. What they have is listed and they have nothing more
So long as the checks and balances hold, then the judiciary branch will have a limited power
There have been some questions about the judiciary’s authority to strike down laws made by Congress, and whether that makes it the more powerful branch.
If there is a difference in opinion between a law and the Constitution, it is the job of the courts to side with the Constitution.
It is the job of the courts to enforce and interpret the law
They need to be independent as to not be vulnerable to subterfuge or actions, they must also be able to stop unjust laws and moderate the force of the law as to not create injustices.
In your notebooks, you need to use Federalist 78 to construct an argument to answer the supporting question: Does life tenure insulate the Supreme Court from politics? You can bring a second piece of evidence from the following sources:
In your argument, you need to clearly label the following: