|
THE REGULATION OF TURNOVER ON THE SUPREME COURT
Ward Farnsworth
Boston University School of Law Working Paper 04-18
Abstract
This Article presents a new analysis of life tenure for Supreme Court
Justices, treating it as a regulatory regime that can be unpacked into
a number of components: (a) Justices can serve into old age; (b) they
can serve for long periods of time; (c) they serve terms of varying lengths;
(d) chances to appoint new Justices arise unpredictably; (e) chances to
appoint new Justices arise irregularly; and (f) the Justices often decide
for themselves when to leave the Court and thus who will pick their replacements.
Breaking down life tenure in this way makes it easier to understand the
pros and cons of proposals to reform it. Age limits would target mostly
(a), would have no effect on (c) or (e), and would work only partial or
uncertain changes in the other respects just listed. Proposals for fixed
terms have the potential to eliminate all of them. The Article concludes
that age limits are worth serious consideration, but that most of the
additional benefits provided by the fixed terms that commentators often
have urged would be illusory or likely to be offset by new problems they
would cause, whether the new regime is adopted by constitutional amendment
or by statute.
The Article argues more particularly that the length of a Justice’s
tenure determines how often vacancies arise and thus how quickly electoral
majorities can remake the Court and force tectonic changes in the law.
From this perspective the right length of judicial terms depends on how
much we trust judgments by majorities over longer and shorter time periods;
life tenure reflects a high and salutary distrust of short-term judgments.
The framework set out above also leads to various other conclusions. One
is that in a regime of life tenure the Senate should play an active role
in screening nominees to offset the arbitrary and lumpy way that nominating
chances are distributed to presidents. Another is that life tenure makes
age more important than the other ways in which most nominees to the Court
differ from their likely alternatives.
Size: 405 KB
Est. download time @ 28.8K: 14 seconds
Adobe Acrobat Reader v3.01 or greater is required to view this paper. To obtain a free copy, click the button below

Ward Farnsworth Contact Information
wf@bu.edu
Boston University School of Law
765 Commonwealth Ave
Boston, MA 02215
USA
(617) 353-4008
Presentation and Publication Information:
Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=639541
Click here to close this window.
|