Have any Supreme Court Justices had the same name? The first served from to The second, his grandson, served from to Have any Supreme Court Justices served as law clerks? Justice Gorsuch is the first to have served as a member of the Court alongside a Justice for whom he clerked. What law schools did the present Justices graduate from? Why do Justices wear black robes? Judicial robes have long been thought to bring dignity and solemnity to judicial proceedings. Following the custom of English judges, some American colonial judges adopted the wearing of robes along with many other customs and principles of the English common law system.
When the Supreme Court first met in , the Justices had not settled on whether to wear robes, but in February they did appear in a standard set of robes for the first time, which one reporter referred to as "robes of justice.
They were only used for a few years before the Justices adopted all black robes. Toggle navigation. As of October , there have been Justices. The average number of years that Justices have served is John Jay was 44 years old when he took his oath of office. Harlan F. Stone was 68 years old when he took his oath of office. Horace Lurton was 65 years old when he took his oath of office. Six Justices were born outside the United States. Nine Justices served as law clerks. They are: Byron R.
William H. Rehnquist clerked for Justice Robert H. Jackson during the Term. And once again, the oldest justice on the court — Stephen Breyer, who turns 83 next month — is enveloped in speculation concerning his retirement.
Some on the left have gone so far as to call for him to step down so a younger replacement can be appointed while a Democrat controls the White House. This political jockeying exemplifies the polarization and dysfunction that now accompanies the filling of seats on the high court. We could alleviate both by imposing term limits for justices and having nonpartisan bodies establish criteria for nominations.
Supreme Court to follow suit. The politicization of the Supreme Court does a great disservice to the judicial system and the nation as a whole. How we got to this point is a bitterly contested story, but there is little doubt that political parties increasingly use the nomination and confirmation process to cement power and control the composition of the court to better ensure that the law will be shaped to advance their political agendas.
The concerns have become so acute that a presidential commission was formed in April to review options for Supreme Court reform. We know, of course, that state court judicial selection is far from perfect. The state judicial systems that use partisan elections mirror the broken federal selection process, in which malicious campaigns are fueled by money that distracts voters from the merit of judicial candidates.
But we also know that Congress could learn from certain elements of other state systems that reduce the chances that politics, rather than the rule of law, guides the courts. One important reform the states have enacted is a limit on judicial tenure. Supreme Court justices serve until retirement, death or impeachment. Lifetime tenure raises the stakes of selection considerably since, as justices are serving for increasingly longer amounts of time, each now sits on the Supreme Court for more than 20 years on average.
The unpredictability of when seats open on the Supreme Court, coupled with the smaller number of seats available compared to the rest of the federal and state judicial system, also makes each opening highly consequential.
And pressure can mount for justices to strategically time their departure to align with the politics of the president, reinforcing the partisan nature of any transition. Lifetime tenure is not essential to judicial independence or democratic governance. And the U. Federal legislators have the power to enact eighteen-year terms for Supreme Court justices. The Constitution does not explicitly establish the type of judicial work done during a life term nor does it prevent Congress from enacting term limits.
Supreme Court justices could transition at the end of their terms to the lower courts with undiminished salary for the remainder of their careers. Justices would also have the option of transitioning to senior status. In the current system, retired Supreme Court justices automatically transition to senior status.
Enacting eighteen-year terms for Supreme Court justices would go a long way toward depoliticizing the appointment process, yet for this remedy to be truly effective it would need to be paired with regular appointments: one Supreme Court justice nominated during each term of Congress. With each president responsible for two nominations per term, the nomination process would become less partisan.
More importantly, eighteen-year terms married to regular appointments would help move the Court toward a less partisan future and restore its legitimacy in the eyes of the American people. Fix the Court is committed to working to implement this recommendation in order to help reinvent American democracy for the 21st century.
0コメント