Stage Three
Ben Feuer's article, "Why the Supreme Court Needs 18-Year Term Limits" is likely intended for an audience of young, left-leaning professionals who are frustrated with the current political system's polarization. Feuer is the chairman of the California Appellate Law Group, and seems knowledgeable and qualified enough to speak about the justice system, given his judicial background. However, his credibility is somewhat called into question by the fact that the article appears to have been published at 4 A.M.
He argues that justices of the Supreme Court should be given term limits of 18 years so that a more comprehensive system of replacement can be instated, so that appointments are not biased toward young justices who will remain on the court longer, and so that each future president would have the same opportunity to make appointments.
In support of his claim that current appointments are biased toward younger justices, Feuer cites the increasing average lifespan and speculates about the decades a new appointee could spend on the court.
However, he does concede that a process of frequent appointments might sabotage the assets of the current system of lifetime appointment, namely that members currently serving are less inclined to make decisions based on the aims of political parties, as they are secure in their employment.
I agree with Feuer regarding term limits; it seems strange to me that some presidents make far more appointments than others, and it seems stranger still that some justices continue to serve for decades, building on the precedent that they themselves created and dominating influential decisions, which create repercussions for the entire nation for years afterward.
He argues that justices of the Supreme Court should be given term limits of 18 years so that a more comprehensive system of replacement can be instated, so that appointments are not biased toward young justices who will remain on the court longer, and so that each future president would have the same opportunity to make appointments.
In support of his claim that current appointments are biased toward younger justices, Feuer cites the increasing average lifespan and speculates about the decades a new appointee could spend on the court.
However, he does concede that a process of frequent appointments might sabotage the assets of the current system of lifetime appointment, namely that members currently serving are less inclined to make decisions based on the aims of political parties, as they are secure in their employment.
I agree with Feuer regarding term limits; it seems strange to me that some presidents make far more appointments than others, and it seems stranger still that some justices continue to serve for decades, building on the precedent that they themselves created and dominating influential decisions, which create repercussions for the entire nation for years afterward.
Comments
Post a Comment