Name

Shawn McCauley

English 191-40170

10 June 2009

Now is the Time to Implement Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices

Thesis: Establishing term limits for Supreme Court Justices is a popular view among both

lawyers and the general public but has not been acted upon by our Congress. Now is the

time to press the issue for change and produce solutions to achieve this change.

Bauer, Robert F. “A Court Too Supreme for Our Good.” The Washington Post. 07 Aug 2005.

The Washington Post. 06 June 2009 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/ AR2005080501999_pf.html>

This article was published in the Washington Post in 2005 during the current Supreme

Court Chief Justice John Roberts nomination/vetting process. The article addresses the

popular opinion that a reform of the lifetime appointments for federal judiciaries should

be implemented. An interesting point of this article is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts

wrote in favor of terms limits in 1983. A separate point is made that perhaps a reform of

this magnitude is not put before Congress as Congress is unwilling to take on a possibly

long and grueling argument that would require an amendment to our constitution. It

offers a possible solution that would not require such an amendment. The author of the

article suggests that a nominee publicly announce that he or she would only serve through

a specific date or term. This article would make a good source for a paper on the need for

Supreme Court terms limits as it addresses the issue of the difficulty in trying to amend a

system that is reluctant to change even though in disagreement with current public
Name 2

opinion and those of the Chief Justice himself. Also, by offering a plausible solution to

problem, this article becomes a useful source in defending the need for change.

Baum, Lawrence. “The Justices.” The Supreme Court, Eighth Edition. Washington, D.C: CQ

Press, a Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc, 2004. 27-67.

The chapter, “The Justices”, from the book, The Supreme Court, provides an objective

view as to why justices stay for long terms as opposed to retirement. It states that since

1869, Justices who leave the court voluntarily or due to illness, will still retain a salary

and may still work with the court in a diminished capacity. These facts are valuable when

trying to understand why these appointees would stay on as full time judges, even as

difficulties such as age, heath and incognizance become an issue. The entire book is a

comprehensive guide to the Supreme Court and provides the background of its

establishment from the founding fathers to current politics. This chapter contains quotes

from separate Justices expressing severe attitudes related to their individual plans to stay

as long as they see fit. Because this book is written objectively with first hand accounts

of the courts daily actions, it makes an excellent resource for a research paper. Verified

accounts of comments made by Justices, like one expressed by Justice Clarence Thomas

that he plans to remain on the court through 2034 just to anger the liberal public, give

validity and usefulness to the call for term limits.

Carrington, Paul D. “When to Retire a Justice.” New York Times 13 April 2009: P21.

GALILEO. North Metro Technical College Library, Acworth, GA. 06 June 2009 <http://

proxygsu-nmt1.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com login.aspx?direct=

true&db=a9h&AN=37560061&site=ehost-live>.
Name 3

This editorial opinion piece was published in the New York Times on April 12, 2009.

The observations noted in this article spotlight the issue of aging Justices and their

decisions to stay on the court long past their abilities to serve in “good behavior” as stated

in the constitution of the United States. Situations such as individual pride, politics

(timing his or her departure for a particular party president) and the convenience of being

able to control the amount of case load are suggested as reasons for some very long terms

of service. The judgments contained in this article are those of a seventy plus year old

law professor. His experiences with the law, his study of the court as a very interested

party and his age enable him to provide an inside view of the subject of term limits

signifies this article as a great source for a research paper. The age of the author helps to

establish the fact that wanting term limits and/or restrictions is not just that of the current

generation.

Primus, Richard. “When is 50 Too Old.” The New Republic, A Journal of Politics and the Arts.

11 May 2009. The New Republic. 06 June 2009 <http://www.tnr.com/politics/

story.html?id=3dc)bc6c-8457-493b-a)64-d655418f62e6>.

This article, written for the website, The New Republic, presents a view that not only

considers the age of a Supreme Court Justice for the purpose of departure from the bench,

but proposes that we consider a minimum age limit for appointment. The assertion of the

article states that by requiring a minimum age for appointment along with a term limit, a

more democratic system with a fairer turn over of justices would result. The article

addresses the difficulties in achieving such a change to the constitution, but defends that

our founding fathers could not have predicted the politics of our time and would have

expected that future legislatures would amend the constitution (as it has been amended on
Name 4

various issues) as necessary. By offering an alternative solution to just term limits and

addressing the fact that the constitution can and has been changed, this commentary

makes a wonderful resource for a paper addressing the problems with lifetime judiciary

appointments.