| Publications
Lifetime Tenure for U.S. Supreme
Court Justices Should Not Be Changed
Wesley Horton argues against time or age limits to the term of Supreme Court Justices.
Two law professors at Northwestern University recently wrote an
op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Supreme
Gerontocracy,” thus joining the ivory tower stampede to
put either a time or age limit on the term of U.S. Supreme Court
justices. See Stephen G. Calabresi & James Lindgren, “Supreme
Gerontocracy,” The Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2005.
The popular suggestions seem to be a constitutional amendment
either to provide for one 18-year term or for mandatory retirement
at age 75.
Were I a Founding Father writing on a clean slate, I probably
would vote for mandatory retirement at age 75. Connecticut
has had mandatory retirement for its constitutional judges
at age 70 for over two hundred years and our system seems
to have worked well. With a few exceptions, mandatory retirement
in Connecticut has allowed our judges to retire gracefully
from the bench before the inroads of time make such a retirement
a necessary event.
But we are not writing on a clean slate, and amendments to
the U.S. Constitution should be reserved for matters of utmost
importance. Otherwise, important and long-followed provisions
might be swept away in the frenzy of a current but passing
event. Better to live with a flawed but endurable provision
than to acclimate voters and politicians to constitutional
change every time an inconvenient provision affects a current
issue.
So the question for me is: is lifetime tenure endurable?
For the rest of the article please
see our latest newsletter
|
| Back to Top |
Arbitration: Benefits and
Risks
Karen Dowd discusses the risks of arbitration.
More and more, litigators in Connecticut are pressured
to resolve their court matters through alternative dispute
resolution. The use of arbitration to resolve cases of all
sizes and types is encouraged both by the judicial system
as a whole, as well as by individual judges through the pretrial
processes. The use of arbitration in the right case can be
of great benefit to both parties, while easing the strain
on the overtaxed judicial system. However, the benefit to
the parties ends if the award is such that appellate review
is warranted. Such review is limited. Moreever, in light of
the recent case, MedValUSA Health Programs, Inc. v. MemberWorks,
Inc., 273 Conn. 634 (2005) [1], review
for violation of public policy is more complicated.
[1] A petition for certification to the United States Supreme
Court has been filed.
For the rest of the article please
see our latest newsletter
|
| Back to Top |
|
