If everything were left up to state courts, states that were hostile to the new federal government might thwart it at every turn. But the extent and shape of the rest of the federal court system—the degree to which the federal government would be present around the nation—would get hashed out in day-to-day politics. The result is the large and powerful federal judiciary we have today. They can decide cases according to what they think the law requires, without worrying about whether some powerful person—or even a majority of the people—will object.
And, as the provision says, Congress and the President cannot retaliate against judges by cutting their salaries. Most state court judges—unlike federal judges—are elected, not appointed; and some have to be re-elected, or approved by the voters, every few years.
Very few people think that federal judges should be elected. There are, though, some critics of lifetime tenure: those critics say that lifetime tenure causes judges to stay in their positions longer than they should—after they have become too old to do their job well, either just because of age or because they are out of touch with modern times. Maybe, these critics say, judges should be appointed for a fixed term of years—say 14 or 18 years—with no chance of being reappointed. But a change like this would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment, and the chance of its happening is extremely small.
Although the guarantee that judges will have lifetime tenure seems simple, it actually raises a difficult question in our system. In the federal government, there are many officials who do judge-like things—think of military courts-martial, for example—but who do not have the lifetime tenure that Article III seems to require for federal judges.
Many of these officials are members of, or work for, administrative agencies—what is sometimes called the federal bureaucracy. Officials like this will rule on whether, for example, a company has used advertisements that deceive consumers, or a business has wrongly tried to prevent its workers from joining a union, or the government has not paid a person the disability benefits he or she is entitled to.
These administrative officials usually serve only for a few years, after which the President can replace them. There are safeguards to prevent officials of this kind from being openly biased or unfair, but because they are appointed so frequently, they are often thought to be more responsive to day-to-day politics than judges are.
Why do we allow these officials to resolve disputes in the way that judges do, even though they do not have the lifetime tenure guarantee that judges have? The answer is complicated, but the basic idea is that you generally have a right to appeal from a decision of one of these officials to a judge whose independence is protected by lifetime tenure.
So judges—including, potentially, the Supreme Court—will have the final word, and that, the Supreme Court has said, is enough to maintain the principle of judicial independence enshrined in Article III.
One part of the answer is easy: the federal courts have the power to decide certain cases and resolve certain controversies, in a neutral and objective way, by interpreting the relevant laws and applying them to the relevant facts. Here, things get more complicated. Alexander Hamilton famously wrote, in The Federalist No. Peck , the Supreme Court effectively expanded its right of judicial review by striking down a state law as unconstitutional for the first time.
Judicial review established the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality in the United States, including federal or state laws, executive orders and lower court rulings.
In another example of the checks and balances system, the U. Congress can effectively check judicial review by passing amendments to the U.
The U. Senate confirms them. Many federal judges are appointed for life, which serves to ensure their independence and immunity from political pressure. Their removal is possible only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. Since , the official number of Supreme Court justices has been set at nine.
Thirteen appellate courts, or U. Courts of Appeals, sit below the Supreme Court. Below that, 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has its own court of appeals. Over the years, the Supreme Court has issued controversial verdicts in a number of milestone cases, including:. Sandford — The Court ruled that a slave was not a citizen, and that Congress could not outlaw slavery in U.
Civil War. Arizona — The Court ruled that police must inform criminal suspects of their rights before questioning them. Connecticut protected by the 14th Amendment. Bush winning the election over Vice President Al Gore. The Judicial Branch, WhiteHouse. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! Subscribe for fascinating stories connecting the past to the present. The legislative branch of the federal government, composed primarily of the U.
The members of the two houses of Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate—are elected by the citizens of the United States. Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.
It also established the lower federal court system. Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine.
Like all federal judges, justices are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They, typically, hold office for life. The salaries of the justices cannot be decreased during their term of office. These restrictions are meant to protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government. The Court has original jurisdiction a case is tried before the Court over certain cases, e. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways admiralty cases.
When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so.
0コメント