Judicial Terms: Pro Position and Con Position – Essay Example

The paper "Judicial Terms: Pro Position and Con Position" is an outstanding example of a law essay.
When supreme members have no worries of reelection, they have no incentive to make any particular decision that will appease a certain group of people with the aim of winning their support or votes. This is significant in ensuring that political biasness is eliminated in these courts. In addition, when these members know that their terms in office are coming to an end, they are likely to be lured by heavy gifts by powerful people in the society, an aspect that might force them to make biased decisions that might affect the future of the country.
The judicial system has an important role in ensuring that laws and the constitution are enforced. If those mandated with these roles keeps on changing, there would be no strong background for justice in the country (Russell and David 45). Furthermore, there would be no consistency in the interpretation of the constitution. This might force the country into a state of legal dilemma.
The current state of judiciary maintains the checks and balances of the administration. If Supreme Court members keep on being reelected this power would be thrown off. For instance, a Republican president can appoint specific members of the Supreme Court in order to drive personal interests, an aspect that might affect the leadership of the country.
Con Position
Term limits would make it possible usher out members of Supreme Court who have mental problems and prevent any strategic retirement that results from political reasons. This is important in maintaining the credibility of the courts.
Currently, the country is struggling with high unemployment levels. The young people remain jobless despite being qualified to hold top positions in the judiciary. Therefore, setting the limits will allow a new crop of members who are sharp and energetic to make sound decisions.
When there are no term limits, the members are likely to become complacent. Therefore, setting limits will ensure that the members remain focused because new members can replace them in case of complacency. This is significant in spearheading growth and development in the judiciary sector (Russell and David 45). Furthermore, the world has become dynamic. New challenges such as cybercrime and terrorism require the review and modern interpretation of the law. Young people are flexible and they adapt to changes more easily. Therefore, setting term limits will give new members an opportunity to bring the changes in the supreme courts.
In order to ensure that the Supreme Court members are not manipulated by the political leaders and other powerful people in the society, I believe the pro side has a strong argument. This will ensure that judiciary retains its independence.