The Supreme Court of the United Sates (SCOTUS) has the incredible task of checking the two other

branches of the American government. That task lies on the backs of nine people: Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, as well as Chief Justice Roberts. All nine are all entitled to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Also, although they are deciding on weighty cases that have the potential to affect millions of Americans, the American people elect none of the nine justices. Instead, the Senate confirms a choice made by the president. If the Senate does not approve his first choice he simply chooses again. Justices serving on the Supreme Court of the United States should be popularly elected to the bench with a single 8-year term. Some argue that appointing Supreme Court justices is better than a direct election of judges. Many counter-arguments focus on the idea that the Court is not political and that elections will corrupt that Court. However, the Court has a tremendous impact on the American public, and it is already a political body. Also, if a single-term limit were imposed on the Court would eliminate the main sources of corruption that people opposed to elections are fearful of. The Supreme Court has a profound effect on the American people even though the vast majority of the population had no say in who does or does not get appointed to the Court. Justices on the Court are chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate when the senate feels assured that the person will do a good job. The justices are not always chosen because they have a lot of judicial experience. Rather, most are chosen to fit into ideological boxes or to make a political statement1. For example, Nixons appointment of Justice Powell was a statement about the approach to criminal justice1. Also, only about 25% of the justices appointed have had extensive judicial careers before they took the bench1 showing that appointing a justice has more to do with politics than capability. Though, most if not all justices are very knowledgeable and

worthy to serve on the Court. It is simply that the decision is based on politics rather than applicability. Although the Court holds a lot of power it is not responsible to everyday citizens, which is odd considering that America prides itself on democracy and even goes so far to attempt to spread democracy. SCOTUS should be responsible to the American public because it hears cases that directly affect the lives of millions of Americans2. Historical cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1952)3 where the separate but equal doctrine was declared inherently unequal highlight the profound effect the Court has on everyday American life. Brown v. Board essentially nullified legal segregation, which was an everyday occurrence in American life. Because of that decision civil rights expanded, and are still expanding today for more than racial minorities4. Even in a case that impacted fewer people directly, like Lochner v. New York, which appraised a statute that forbade bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours each day, the Court had an affect on American lives. SCOTUS resolved the case on constitutional grounds. Namely, that the Fourteenth Amendment's right to liberty was violated by the statute that placed limitations on the freedom of contract of employer and employees5. This case shows that at its core SCOTUS works to uphold the constitution, but its rulings have an affect on the day-to-day lives of the American people. Since the results impact everyday activities, like work, the population that is being affected should have a say about who is on the bench. Direct election of justices confirms that the Supreme Court is a political body rather than forcing the Court to become politicized. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison established judicial review6, which allows for the nine justices to decide on whether or not a piece of legislation is constitutional. Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution2, and this decision

connects SCOTUS with legislation that directly affects the American public. Cases have been heard that change the political and social discourse in the United States. Even though it is a political body the Supreme Court cannot actually enforce its decisions, however legal precedents are widely respected and utilized in the American legal system2. President Jackson famously said in 1832, John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it1. This remark, while seemingly a witty observation about the actual extent of the Courts power, does not take into account the political power that the Court has. The Supreme Court is a political body and has been making political decisions almost since its inception. In an ideal world the justices are nonpartisan decision makers who interpret the constitution. They partially do just that -- they interpret the constitution in a way that makes sense to them. Since the justices are all human beings with developed opinions and partisan viewpoints the court cannot be apolitical in its process. For example, the Dred Scott case was a political decision made to appease south7. In addition, it was meant to help pro-slavery Democrats while hurting anti-slavery Republicans. Contemporaries realized that, and it shows that the Court does have a say in the politics of the country. Since the Supreme Court has a part in shaping American politics the American people should be able to decide on whether or not they are being fairly represented. Until relatively recently, the Court had no women serving even though women were given the right to vote in 1920. The same problem exists with racial minorities, religious minorities, and other groups that have recently been recognized as deserving of human rights. In addition, SCOTUS costs $1.1 billion dollars for the upcoming year just for the GSA space rental8. Since the Court works for and works to clarify the law for the American people, Americans should be able to vote a Court that reflects them. It is similar to the direct election of senators. If the public can be trusted to

directly elect senators as outlined in the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 then the public can be trusted to chose the people that review the laws that the senate passes. Americans view some cases as personal issues, like the Roe v. Wade case, which legalizes a woman's' right to choose whether or not she wants to have a child. That particular case has sparked controversy, debate, rallies, protests, and many other forms of speech that express approval or not of SCOTUS's decision1. The American people have a stake in the outcomes of certain cases, just like many people have a stake in legislation that passes. It is much harder to get SCOTUS to listen than a member of congress. A congressman will listen to his or her constituents because he believes that he is responsible to them. The Court should feel responsible to the public because of the affect it has on it. And though some fear that lections would cause corruption within the Court, a single-term limitation would eliminate the desire to please in order to get reelected, but elections would still maintain some sort of connection between the Court and the people that it is influencing. Electing the justices will not cause corruption if done in a way that eliminates the main reasons that politicians bow to external pressures. The Court has almost garnered a sense of mystery around itself2. The justices are not on CSPAN nor do they get the almost celebrity-like attention the president and some congressmen receive from the media9. The Court is also incredibly prestigious with very learned and knowledgeable justices, so it makes sense that it seems almost like the Court is detached from the normal squabbling that takes place in political discourse. However, the Court is political and it should be accountable. There is fear that if Supreme Court justices were to campaign for election then they would be susceptible to outside pressures that would ultimately control or influence the way the justices voted. The main method that companies, interest groups and even individuals exert some influence over political

actors is through money. There are also ways to influence political actors through providing information to them, but that is commonplace and is already used as a way to inform or sway the justices. Potential and incumbent congressmen have to raise money if they want to be elected since people will not vote for veritable unknowns. Potential justices will need money to run ads or hold rallies; however, if the money came from the government, had limitations placed on how much money a justice could use, or a combination of both then the fear of corruption through money is nearly eliminated. Also, if justices were limited to one term they would not be raising money during their time on the bench nor would they be writing decisions to cater to a group that would help them get elected. It is logical for a democratic country to elect the people that have an effect on the future of the political system as well as an impact on everyday life. Supreme Court justices should be elected to ensure that they are accountable to the people, and electing them will not adversely affect the prestige of the court. Despite those arguments many still argue that electing the justices will not work simply because the American people do no care about the Court. However, that is clearly not true. Controversial cases get more media attention, and people are more likely to know about those cases10. That is true for all public discourse, though. For example, people are more likely to know what the Presidents stance of gay marriage is rather than the details of his tax plan. We do not require people to know about all the legislation that is passed in the year, yet we still allow the public to vote on congressmen. Using the excuse that some people are ignorant as a way to keep the American people from having a greater voice in their government is not fair nor is it democratic. We must solve the problem of enforced silence of the American people and allow the public to choose its justices.