Discussion 10

4.  Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to put term limits in place for Supreme Court justices, say for 10–12 year terms, after which they would no longer be able to serve on the Court?

I think not. My reasoning is that if the Presidents continually appoint new Justices every so often, there will be a steady, albeit slow, flow of newer thought into the Supreme Court. The good thing about having long (life) terms for Supreme Court Justices is that there is an unlikelihood that the Supreme Court will vacillate greatly in its interpretation of the law. If our Justices are appointed by different Presidents and are of different ages, I feel that the Supreme Court will be more balanced. I don't see any harm in having the life-terms, because even 10-15 years, the suggested term limit, is a pretty long time for a person to be in a government appointment.  So, I feel that it will create no greatly negative effects. 

Tara Greiving: Hi Dana, 

I think this is a very clear explanation. I also agree I think having the same one for long terms helps with consistency in the court rooms.

Kristen McPherson: Hi Dana!

I think your thought on having one long term instead of different shorter ones will definitely help keep things the same in the court room. But also having some change could be good.

Web Critique 10

Website Name:  Supreme Court of the United States                                  
Operated By:  United States Government                
Funded By: Congress allocation

This website is the online home of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a well-organized, aesthetically pleasing, and easily navigable webpage.  Most importantly, it provides information in a way that is understandable to regular citizens. They even include several sections to make the website as helpful as possible to interested citizens. These locations on the website are titled “Visitor’s Guide to Oral Argument”,  “Where to Find Briefs”, an interesting five-fold section titled “About the Court”, “Visiting the Court”, “Touring the Building”, “Exhibitions”, and a helpful FAQ. Really I can’t offer any constructive criticism for the site. They organize their information in such a logical orderly manner, that it is really a great website!

 

Instructor Notes - The Courts

Instructor Notes for Week 10 – Chapter 14 - The Courts Again, as in the previous chapter, this may sound like a very boring chapter to students but this is an important and fascinating subject area about a sector of our government that actually affect all Americans with their decisions on a daily basis. Anyone who has ever served on a jury, or has had to go to court as a defendant or a petitionerknows the sense of finality of a court decision. We need to understand our judicial system in this country as one never knows when one might find themselves in court being profoundly affected by the court process and/or decision. So, pay attention to this important section as it might be very critical to your personal life at some point and as the two cases below illustrate, the courts are making a difference in our political lives most of the time. This is an especially critical time in our history with recent cases that have even affected the 2012 election campaigns. In June 2012, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, the Affordable Care Act, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Links to an external site.)  Another important earlier case, Citizens United (2010), remains a quite controversial decision. In this case, the Court “held that private corporations, which are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and are not political membership organizations, enjoy the same political free speech rights as people under the First Amendment and may draw on the wealth of their treasuries to spend unlimited sums promoting or disparaging candidates for public office. The billions of dollars thus turned loose for campaign purposes at the direction of corporate managers not only can be but—under the terms of corporate law—must be spent to increase profits. If businesses choose to exercise their newly minted political “money speech” rights, they must work to install officials who will act as  corporate tools.”  http://www.thenation.com/article/169915/citizens-united-and-corporate-court# (Links to an external site.) Cartoon: Wasserman, The Boston Globe