Judges on the United States Supreme Court have lifetime appointments. The reason for this is logical. It is intended to make them absolutely fearless in their judgements and beholden to no-one, not even those who put them there.
It makes
perfect sense in principle that this should make the court incorruptible. However,
since the US constitution was written on the ‘reasonable person’ principle, and
many of those making the appointments and judgements can no longer objectively be
considered reasonable people, things have gone awry. Allegations of conflicts of
interests and “gifts” are eroding confidence in the court
If the framers of the US constitution had their time over, they would possibly realise they created a nine-headed king. You might remember they had a bit of a thing against kings.
To restore public faith in the court, I humbly suggest some possible reforms:
 |
| A 9-headed king, yesterday |
1: Term limits
The term should be generous – at least 12 years so as to be longer than a 2-term presidency. 25 years would not be out of the question. However, this would create the problem of Justices having an eye on their next gig or retirement plan. This problem could be offset by some of the suggestions below.
2: Pay them so much nobody could possibly bribe them
The current salary of a Supreme Court Justice is $298,500. No small amount for sure, but quite modest for the amount of work and responsibility they are expected to take on. It’s certainly not enough to fund they lifestyles we know some of the Justices enjoy. This naturally leads people to wonder how they make up the balance, regardless of whether they do it through wise investments or iffy favours.
In fact, adjusted for 2023 values, Supreme Court salaries have trended downwards over the last 30 years, having peaked in 1969 at an equivalent rate of just under $500,000. It’s entirely likely the judges are making less than the attorneys presenting arguments to them.
I know it’s not a popular view that public servants should be paid more. In 2024, even a million dollars a year might not be enough to prevent them lending an ear to potential benefactors. However, this expense would be offset by savings in the implementation and consequences of judgements which benefit only a monied few.
3: Ban all receipt of any benefits from anyone including to family
There are
far too many loopholes in gifts to judges. As such, this rule must also apply
to a judge’s family and close friends, who will have to be named and declared
upon appointment and every year during their appointment.
Any product or service of any kind which is not directly paid for by a judge must be declared and audited annually. This also applies to spouses, children, parents, siblings and close friends. If a judge’s spouse gives them a Christmas present worth over $100, it must be declared. Get an upgrade on a flight? It must be declared. Spend the weekend at a rich friend’s house? Declare the relative value of that stay.
Judges will be audited annually and any breach will result in a mandatory 5-years’ imprisonment and being barred from employment for life. The Supreme Court itself will be barred from hearing appeals on any such breaches and will be judged by Congress.
Yes, it’s harsh. But service comes with sacrifice. At least they’re not being shot at.
4: Overturning a previous Supreme Court judgement would require a majority of at least seven
This will avoid perpetual relitigation of cases every time the court changes.
5: Mandatory retirement at 75
As a rule, I am not keen on mandatory retirement but a line had to be drawn somewhere. We have decided that 18 is a reasonable age for someone to be able to make adult decisions. Some people are more than capable of making adult decisions at 16. Others are totally incapable even at 30.
Likewise, some people remain fighting fit and sharp at 85, and some are completely gaga by 65. 75 is a reasonable age to maintain experience on the bench with appropriate turnover. Current rules state that a retired judge’s pension can be no less than what they were earning at the time of retirement. They would be barred from taking any other form of employment.
These are five reasonable suggestions. Or perhaps you have a better idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment