The structural arrangement and functions of the Supreme Court are some of the most unique aspects of any judicial system. Of these, a chief justice's tenure on the court is perhaps the most distinctive. Supreme judges, once appointed, remain in office for life or until retirement, which would make any professional envious. This privilege serves many purposes, both good and bad, that are essential to a judge's ability to interpret the law of the Constitution without conviction. There has been much debate about the need to limit the mandate of the Supreme Court justice. Opponents raise valid objections to the status quo, saying that letting a judge serve for more than seventy years can cloud the judgment of a judge's opinion with respect to social evolution. Often in many lower courts, the power of politics surpasses too many areas of the justice system. Judges who are politically supported and appointed by such influences may be removed or not re-elected because of the court decisions they make. So, in turn, lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court ceases any political or external repercussions of the decision to terminate. Therefore the judge is now bound only to the law and the constitution, and therefore to the independence of the judiciary. Other aspects of the nomination, such as salary, are also noteworthy points in determining whether influence is affected. However, with a lifetime salary of about $240,000 for associate justices and $250,000 for chief justice, even with a salary reduction or increase, the influence would be nil. However, Article III also provides a clause according to which the salary of a federal judge cannot be subject to reduction, for the sole purpose of influences that do not entice or threaten his social life (United, in fact, the Supreme Court system is considered a de facto legislature. The legal basis that allowed the Court to decide what legislation is constitutional or not is what makes it de facto (Harr, J.S., Hess, K.M., Orthmann, C.M.H., & Kingsbury, J. 2015). it was Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which it gave the court null power and nullified any legislative passage of congress that violated the Constitution, later including the states in Martin v. Hunter's Lesse (1816) (Harr, J.S., Hess, K.M. , Orthmann, C.M.H., & Kingsbury, J.2015).This has been seen in many cases where Congress and states have passed laws that impede constitutional rights, cases such as Roe v Wade (1973), where the rejection of abortion under state law violates. a constitutional right of free choice, or United States v. Windsor (2013) in which the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act of Congress allowing the denial of same-sex marriages was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are such examples. (Harr, J.S., Hess, K.M., Orthmann, C.M.H., & Kingsbury, J.2015). These cases illustrate the de facto method of lawmaking in which the Supreme Court examines elements of law to determine where they violate the Constitution or