Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Should Supreme Court Justices have limited terms?

No description
by

Emilee Paulus

on 2 June 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Should Supreme Court Justices have limited terms?

Should Supreme Court Justices have limited terms?
By: Emilee Paulus
Pros & Cons:
Not Having Limited Terms:
Pros:
I don't think there are any pros of not having a limited term in the Supreme Court.
Cons:
gives them too much power over a long period of time and doesnt give room for change.
Pros & Cons
Having Limited Terms:
Pros:
in recent decades, justices now linger so long that it diminishes the likelihood that the court's decisions 'will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.'
Cons:
having term limits for US supreme court justices could move the court further in the direction of a "living consitution."
Background Info
The Supreme Court of The United States is the highest Judicial body in the US.
It's membership consists of 1 Cheif Justice and 8 associate justices.
The Justices are nominated by the President of the United States & appointed after comformation from the US senate.
Justices of the Supreme Court have life tenure and receive a salary which is set at $255,500 per year for the chief justice and at $244,400 per year for each associate justice as of 2014.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987)
Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.


Common good v. individual rights
The common good is the idea that in some situations individual's right may take a back seat to what's best for a group of people as a whole.
A proper government protects and defines the individual rights of its citizens. Under such a government, the courts play a crucial role; it is through the courts that men are able to settle disputes peacefully according to predetermined legal rules.
My Position:
I believe that the Supreme Court Justices should have limited terms to serve because if they have the ability to serve forever, that doesn't give the Supreme Court any type of change.
The Why:
If we don't have limited terms, it keeps the same people in the seats of the Supreme Court, so we have the opinions and rules from the same people.
Arguments for the Opposing Side:
Term limits would give more power to bureaucrats and lobbyists.
Credible Sources:
https://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2014/march2014/scotus-term-limits
http://individualrightsgovernmentwrongs.com/liberty/individual-rights-and-the-common-good/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
Full transcript