Lifetime Appointment to the Supreme Court
Providing no lifetime limits for appointing the Supreme Court contradicts the democratic underpinning. There is also a threat that the Supreme Court will become more subjective and less reliable on the established rules and legal principles. In this respect, it is paramount to establish limits for appointing judges to the Supreme Court because this will contribute to social and democratic justice.
Apart from legal issues, such a decision can improve economic and political situation through providing vacancies on a relatively regular basis (Bardes et al, 2008, p. 434). Such a system can refresh the views on legal issues and establish less stereotypic judgments, which is especially important at the age of democracy in the United States. However, lifetime appointment can guarantee the security of federal government and independent of judicial system (Rutkus, 2010, p. 1). While choosing the least of two evils, the former sounds more reasonable and effective.
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis
The principle of stare decisis implies that judges follow previous decisions in defining the guiltiness or innocence of an accused person (Harr and Mess, 2007, p 40). On the one hand, this doctrine ensures the judicial system with a kind of objectivity and deprives judges of prejudice justices. This specifically concerns the cases when judges are too subjective in passing the sentence. Nevertheless, the previous legal decisions are possibly made on another basis, which creates probability that there will be unprecedented cases. Therefore, it is unreasonable to strictly follow the principles of common love, particularly when it comes to criminal cases.
Along with social changes, people are in greater need of legal changes. This is a common principle of regular social development. In this regard, society cannot follow the old-fashion rules that remain unchanged. For instance, with the rise of technological advancement, greater range of weapons has become available for people. Besides, there is also a necessity to reconsider the problem of capital punishment due to the shift in morality and ethics.
Reference List
Harr, J. S. and Hess, K. M. (2007). Constitutional Law and Criminal Justice System. US: Cengage Learning.
Rutkus, D. S. (2010). Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate. US: DIANE Publishing.