UCLA Political Science Federal justices Discussion

Discussion question options:

Federal justices serve on the bench “during good behaviour,” typically meaning until they resign, retire, or pass away. Some have proposed a number of modifications to this, including rotating 18-year terms, staggered such that vacancies are uniform across time. Do you believe justices should have rotating, fixed terms? Why or why not?

Federal justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so voters have no direct say in who is selected. However, many state courts (like Texas) use competitive elections to select judges, while other states (like California) hold retention elections where the governor first appoints a justice and voters then decide in the next election if they want that individual to continue on. Which selection method do you think is superior? Should justices be elected or appointed? How might these mechanisms change their decisions?

In recent public statements, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer have argued that 1) the Supreme Court is a nonpartisan institution and that 2) policymakers should resist enacting any reforms that would risk politicizing the Court.  Why are the justices concerned about public perceptions of the Court’s partisanship?  Are they correct that the Court operates independently of partisan politics?  Why or why not?

The power of “special interests” in DC is often decried by many. Do you believe that interest groups have too much power in the United States? Why or why not? If you believe they have too much power, how could this be addressed?

Peer 1:

In my opinion, the power of interest groups is overwhelming in the United States. The special interest lobbyists control the members of Congress from providing a substantial amount of funding. The lobbyists can prevent the adoption of policies that are unfavorable to their interest organizations and use huge resources to promote policies to benefit the group they represent through the members of Congress. The legislations are influenced by special interest lobbyists at the expense of the public interest and may distort democracy. I think this problem can be addressed by prohibiting the members of Congress to receive funding from the interest groups, so that the decision of legislation can be less affected.

Peer 2:

Federal justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so voters have no direct say in who is selected. However, many state courts (like Texas) use competitive elections to select judges, while other states (like California) hold retention elections where the governor first appoints a justice and voters then decide in the next election if they want that individual to continue on. Which selection method do you think is superior? Should justices be elected or appointed? How might these mechanisms change their decisions?I think the electoral system is better because it reduces the politicization and partisanship in electing judges and reflects democracy.Judges in the United States, like politicians, play a pivotal role in the policy decision process. By resolving specific disputes, courts enable or inhibit the achievement of public policy. Judges have broad latitude in the performance of their duties. The election of judges is about making the judiciary genuinely accountable to the people, eliminating the influence of political parties on the selection process, improving the quality of judges selected, and removing politics from the selection process. One scholar points out that judges in the U.S. federal courts are appointed, but their decisions are in most cases consistent with those of the President who appointed them. But judges who are elected are more democratic in their administration of justice. They are somewhat more connected to society, and their decisions are more willing to reflect the views of changing times.