Balkinization  

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Life Tenure: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed

Sandy Levinson

I will gladly accept the invitation of my friend Marty Lederman to say a few words about life tenure, largely because I can also bring to your collective attention a new collection co-edited by Roger Cramton and Paul Carrington, REFORMING THE COURT: TERM LIMITS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, just published by the Carolina Academic Press. It brings together a collection of people from across the political spectrum (including, for example, Steve Calabresi, one of the founding fathers of the Federalist Society). Most, though not all, of the participants oppose life tenure. Calabresi and his Northwestern colleague Jim Lindgren point out, for example, that the average length of tenure between 1911-1940 was 16 years and dropped to 12.2 years between 1941-1970 )perhaps skewed by the one-year term of James Byrnes and the 4 or 5 year term of Charles Whittaker). The average length between 1970-2005 is 26.1 years! And the average age of leavetaking in this period has been just short of 80. This is crazy. Almost no other country has this kind of "real" life tenure, as distinguished, say, from "life tenure with age limits." And most countries, at least in constitutions written since World War II, have wisely chosen to have limited terms for their highest courts.

The best defense of our system is offered by Ward Farnswroth, who offers a shorter version of an article that has also been recently published in the Illinois Law Review. Farnsworth is an interesting (and independent) thinker, but I think it's fair to summarize his argument as of the "if it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing" genre. He freely admits that no one advising some other country on "constitutional design" would suggest the US system. Most of us believe that the system IS broken, for reasons ranging from the political gaming of appointments (with an incentive to appoint youngsters) and resignations, not to mention the fact that a depressing number of judges have stayed on even after losing (at least) a step in mental acuity. The worst example was William O. Douglas, but, alas, he's not the only one. (David Garrow has a piece in the Carrington-Cramton book on this.)

The major disagreement between Calabresi-Lindgren and myself is whether one would need a (practically unattainable) constitutional amendment in order to establish term limits (we all agree that 18 years would be the right term) or whether this could be done by legislation. My piece in the book argues for the latter, since the Constitution simply does not SAY "life tenure." It, instead, says that a judge can't be impeached so long as his/her "behaviour" is "good."

My thanks to Marty for giving me this chance to plug an interesting collection.

Comments:

I advocated this years ago. I'd be interested to see a graphic of how the 18 years spans Presidential terms.

Amazon has it listed, but you may want to upload a scan of the cover if you have it.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594602034/qid=1138754021/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7630145-0955369?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Or better still, crib one off the CAP site (with permission):

http://www.cap-press.com/books/1531

The cover:

http://www.cap-press.com/covers/1531.gif
 

The Federalist surely doesn't think the Constitution was intended to allow term limited judges. Since term limits, especially overly short ones, raise various problems such as possible favoritism in hope for a position after forced retirement, an amendment is probably needed.

As to Douglas. Term limits would not solve that problem. I think term limits would encourage a set number of years on lower courts, thus perhaps ten on each level, at least in certain cases. Thus, oveall, a judge would have extended service. Think of term limits in state elective bodies that allow a person to run for a different position.

Furthermore, Douglas had his stroke in his mid-70s. Consider Powell, appointed in his sixties, and on the Court for around fifteen years. In the future, especially with term limits and longer life spans encouraging appointment of older nominees, various judges might be in their 70s before being term limited.

The best way to deal with a Douglas is a stricter definition of "good behavior." The successful first impeachment was basically to deal with a sick judge. Alexander Hamilton noted that insanity would make a judge unfit for service.

Mental incompetence would as well. If push came to shove, Douglas should have been deemed in "bad" behavior. Insisting to stay on even though he knew he was not able to do the job.

I think O'Connor retired about the right time. A few others sticked around a few years too long, though surely did not linger on THAT long. White, for instance, was on for a long time, but no one suggested he past his time. I really don't find the 25yr time as that outrageous.
 

If one believes that Douglas exhibited "bad behaviour" in not having the grace to resign, then what about Rehnquist?

sandy levinson
 

I think your suggestion to set fixed term limits taints the nobility of the US Justice, but am open to debate, and will enjoy the book in which you collaborated.
I worry about the infamous vagaries of numerous foreign countries' judiciaries. And I have parallel concern that our solution be as auspiciously unique as our form of government. I dread the thought of the photogenic Justice receiving electronic prompting from a coterie of senior clerks during argument, as if SCOTUS were transmuting into a panel of Justice-experts and the lead anchor Justice.
Other areas difficult to assess without much study are effects such as our newfound longevity; the effect on mentation induced by health maintenance pharmaceuticals; and, as your earlier commenters quickly observed, the new partisanships that would impart a new kind of inertia to SCOTUS rendering it more similar to some state courts with elected judges for fixed terms.
One idea that came to mind was to form a panel of appeals court judges to write performance reviews of the nine Justices, though I could imagine clamor from academia, ABA, and thence, Federalist, Heritage, and all the influential jurisprudential societies to rotate through their own representation in the review panel.
The riskiest element in the concept of fixed terms is its first vetting. Something about the ambience in the current congress makes me sense its aims in such deliberations might be less far seeing than the enthusiastic souls who comprised the constitutional conventions.
 

Why should a constitutional amendment be insurrmountable?

The 11th, 12th, 20th and 25th which made similar minor housekeeping changes in the Constitution that weren't deeply partisan.

An 18 year term, particularly if it was made prospective only, is just the sort of matter upon which bipartisan agreement could be achieved and upon which ratification could be accomplished.

Whether the founders definitively considered whether it would be possible or not to by statute have something other than life tenure, long practice in the United States has been to the contrary and has cemented the view that Article III judges are entitled to life tenure.
 

You should comment on the competition comparison of the blog. You can highlight it's mind boggling. Your blog exploration/tour will broaden your conversions. Luxury Hotel Soccer Wall
 

As we all know, life is always moving on.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home