Article III of the US Constitution governs the appointments, remuneration, and term of federal judges’ office. According to it, the Supreme Court members are appointed by the President with the Senate’s confirmation. Their term of office is lifelong, and the amount of remuneration is fixed during all the course of their work. Judges can also be removed from office only through the impeachment process. Despite the fundamental reasons for establishing such conditions by the framers of the Constitution, the appointment has been causing more and more controversy among the public in recent years.
The main motive for creating Article III was the desire to protect the judges of the Supreme Court from the need to participate in political events, which excludes their bias. Thus, if the judges were required to participate in the elections every few years, this would inevitably lead to their desire to make more popular decisions. Nevertheless, several problems are connected with this, since the administration of a particular president appoints a certain judge. Judges are not retiring, waiting for a successor with similar views, which increases their term of office. In this regard, many supporters of changing the rules refer to mental decrepitude as a primary issue. On the other hand, judges are protected from motivated retirement, which gives them more political and financial independence. Another significant criticism of such a system is the assertion that life appointment violates democratic ideas, thereby, alienating the court from people. Thus, the advantage of the existing rule is the complete protection of judges from political and economic bias. However, the disadvantages are the violation of democratic orders and the possible effects of mental decrepitude.
In my opinion, the framers of the Constitution made the right choice by introducing such an article. The Supreme Court makes important decisions that require special experience and knowledge from its members. The age of the judges, in this case, is more an advantage than a disadvantage. From their experience, they can make impartial and fair decisions. Moreover, judges do not need to participate in the race for votes, which frees them from worrying about their work’s political aspects. Therefore, I think it is an effective model of supreme justice.