The notion of handing federal judges a lifetime tenure gets connected to the fact that judges would have job security and avert any external threats that would dictate their rules and execution of duties. We live in a society that is controlled by powerful forces and two different political groups (Republicans and Democrats) who have a broader role in shaping the judicial decisions (Yoon, 2005; Chemerinsky, 2016). For instance, passing of bills and changing certain doctrines to favor them. Lifetime tenure among judges also ensures that they carry on with their judicial corridor experiences which they, in turn, use to coach and inspire newly appointed judges and magistrates.
On the other hand, lifetime tenure has a lot of implications since major political outfits have politicized it in the country. Some have argued that they have been left out and significant decisions made have not been favoring them. Limiting the federal lifetime tenure would also do a more substantial part in ensuring that these ‘oppressed group' feel that they have a hand in drafting rules that govern them. Limiting the tenures to a specific duration also gives them powers in nominating judges of their choices (Chemerinsky, 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I support the lifetime tenure since it gives judges the security to decide on cases or major decisions regardless of the political temperatures in the country. The effects of re-nominating and re-appointing judges come with a price since their previous legal decisions will get used as a tool of re-electing or rejecting them (Yoon, 2005). In the end, judges will be forced to make decisions as per the needs of a particular political group to seal their re-nomination.
References
Chemerinsky, E. (2016). Federal jurisdiction. Aspen Student Treatise.
Yoon, A. (2005). As you like it: Senior federal judges and the political economy of judicial tenure. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(3), 495-549.
