Checks and balances: Supreme Court justices should not be subject to elections

Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, was accused of sexual assault and still was confirmed by the Senate to be a supreme court justice. After the recent Kavanaugh hearing, a firestorm of talk about the inner workings of our judicial branch has become a magnified topic of discussion.

This holds true in not only the political arena, but also among constituents. Some today are questioning whether we can trust the current process of having a sitting president nominate a replacement for the Supreme Court of the United States. Disputes boil down to: Should American citizens have a direct vote in who is elected to the Supreme Court? Additionally, does the decades-old process need to be replaced by a system with more room for the majority input or should the process continue as it is? An examination of the systematic workings of the judicial branch would indicate why the answer is a resounding, no to changing the process outlined by our Founding Fathers.

When the United States was first established, the Founding Fathers deliberately established three branches of government as a check and balance against government overreach. Executive and legislative branches have been elected by the people; members of the judicial branch are then appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  There are nine Supreme Court justices.

The justices can keep their seat for a life term unless they wish to resign or are impeached by the Senate for wrongdoing. Justices traditionally choose to serve until their retirement. The average term served is 16 years with the longest served being 34 years. This protects them from the temporary infatuations of the public and is what allows them to apply the law without fear of losing their positions – similar to a college professor and tenure.

The Founding Fathers thought that it was very important to have one branch of the government, not be indebted to the fads of popular culture. To provide stable laws despite vacillating political environments. This is based on the idea that elected officials represent the beliefs of their voters and not an unbiased interpretation of the law.

In order for people to have the right to directly vote for justices, there would need to be a change to the constitution, which can be very difficult to achieve. Article V of the constitution states that it requires an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is then up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratify it.

If able to change the constitution and vote the justices into the Supreme Court, it could cause judges to lack the ability to set aside personal moral interpretation from legal interpretation.

It would be impossible to maintain impartiality if proposed judges are only in place for the next election cycle. If judges were elected, they would need money to win votes and maintain popularity to keep up with the polls. Popularity should have nothing to do with the judicial branch; Judgements need to be fair and in accordance with the law.

Discord occurs when a justice chooses to retire. Justices usually wait for retirement until a president who aligns with their social beliefs is voted into office.

If a term length were implemented and justices had to stand for reelection, they will be more likely to vote how the people want them to, rather than what they think the constitution really says. The judicial branch is designed for reviewing the constitution and making sure the principles this nation was founded upon is kept, and not at the mercy of changing popular beliefs.

The constitution was designed to implement a system of checks and balances. If elected, justices will only be interested in being re-elected. Meaning decisions will be based on popular opinion and personal belief. Political appointment to office does not always mean a justice will vote the way of the current president.

Disagreements amongst political peers are common. For example, Justice Kennedy was known for being a swing vote. Using interpretation of the law and not personal feeling in making his decision for the country.

Decisions of the court must be grounded in the Constitution, not in popular opinion. If Supreme Court justices were subject to election, then those who made unfavorable but correct rulings would be subject to replacement rather than the upholding of our country’s statutes and integrity.

These are undoubtedly some of the problems our founders anticipated when they wrote the Constitution. In addition, they were careful to make sure neither the President or the Senate had complete control over the appointment process to discourage abuse of power and help maintain the independence of the judicial branch through checks and balances.