1. Set Focus
Frame the inquiry with these essential questions: What is the value in having a justice system that is not politicized? How does a government ensure that its justice system is free from political pressures?
2. Read and Discuss
Have students read the debate and then answer the following questions:
- What is the issue being debated? How does it relate to current events? (The issue is whether Supreme Court justices should have term limits. The issue is timely because the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett just days before the 2020 election intensified the term-limit debate.)
- Evaluate why these two authors might be interested in and qualified to comment on this issue. (Calabresi is a law professor at Northwestern University. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.)
3. Core Skill Practice
Project or distribute Analyzing Authors’ Claims and have students use the activity to analyze and evaluate each author’s arguments.
- Analyze Calabresi’s view. (Calabresi argues in favor of term limits. He says that lifetime tenure gives some presidents too much influence over the Supreme Court and others too little, incentivizes picking younger nominees, allows justices to remain on the Court when they are no longer capable of doing their job, and gives justices power in picking their successors by timing their retirement.)
- Analyze Yoo’s view. (Yoo argues against term limits. He says that lifetime tenure allows justices to be independent from politics and free from the pressure of ruling in certain ways to secure future job prospects. He also says that the political fighting over appointments is not because of life tenure but because of the types of cases the Court hears.)