Should Supreme Court Justices have life long appointments?

[Granny]

Given today's political climate, I would personally go for term limits on the Supreme Court. Setting that option aside, I think maybe the Constitution should be amended to put an appointment age. Most (but not all) Justices, I think, come with very impressive resumes from large law firms. I'm just basing this on my very long legal secretarial career - but these large firms usually have a mandatory attorney retirement age of 72. So if age 72 became the earliest age at which someone could be nominated, then the "lifetime" appointment would (from an actuarial standpoint) probably not be more than 20 years on average. Either way, maybe vetting these nominees should be a hell of a lot harder than it is. In my opinion, neither - hell - I can't even remember their damned names - the last two females on the bench should never have been appointed - one had exactly one case before SCOTUS, which she lost, and then "hid" herself in as a professor at Harvard(?) for the rest of her law career. No real experience. The other, an admitted member of LaRaza - in keeping with her Puerto Rican heritage to help Hispanics with their travails. That's fine - except I believe I've read that one of the stated goals of LaRaza is to reclaim the SW states as Mexican territory. It just seems that lately SCOTUS has taken over legislation instead of ruling on what actually has been legislated and in line with what is in the Constitution.

I'm definitely for term limits on Congress. Too many of them have been seated for too long and have become way too "comfortable" in those seats to remember why they were elected in the first place or even care what they are and are not doing other than what's good for their personal gain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

I don't mind lifetime appointments, but I think the Supreme Court should be somewhere other than Washington DC, so they're not mixed in with bad influences and induced to "evolve" in the office.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Should Supreme Court Justices have life long appointments?"

Yes.

Next.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Life time appointments was to keep the court above politics. It's obvious the Democrats choose justices that only agree with their ideology. Like everything, they have preverted our system of government. Therefore, I am now in favor of short term appointments of 8 years with staggered appointments like the Senate.

It's obvious the Democrats choose justices that only agree with their ideology
only the democrats do this?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Judges should be appointed for life. This should not be political football and especially with the Supreme Court Justices.

people get way to comfortable,and many cases way to old.....10 years and you are out,and whoever is president at the time picks a new one...

 

[waltky]

There should be an age 75 limit...

... if for no other reason than that new blood...

... would allow the court to take advantage of brighter minds.

 

[Disir]

Judges should be appointed for life. This should not be political football and especially with the Supreme Court Justices.

people get way to comfortable,and many cases way to old.....10 years and you are out,and whoever is president at the time picks a new one...

No.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Judges should be appointed for life. This should not be political football and especially with the Supreme Court Justices.

people get way to comfortable,and many cases way to old.....10 years and you are out,and whoever is president at the time picks a new one...

No.

yes

 

[Disir]

Judges should be appointed for life. This should not be political football and especially with the Supreme Court Justices.

people get way to comfortable,and many cases way to old.....10 years and you are out,and whoever is president at the time picks a new one...

No.

yes

Nope.

 

[Nosmo King]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

FDR suggested the same thing and got sternly rebuffed by congress and the people.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Judges should be appointed for life. This should not be political football and especially with the Supreme Court Justices.

people get way to comfortable,and many cases way to old.....10 years and you are out,and whoever is president at the time picks a new one...

No.

yes

Nope.

im afraid so...

​

 

[Slyhunter]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

 

[tigerred59]

I think all politicians, including supreme court judges should all be short termed limited. The shift in change is coming at a speed that no one has inticipated. And our politicians are getting older and older and unable to adjust to these changes. They're also making laws that they themselves don't have to experience, such as men challenging abortions or white men having a black experience. I also think politicians like voters should have to live with the consequences of their actions. Again they're removed from our realities.

All politicians should be given term limits, just as the President of the US.

 

[tigerred59]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

 

[RandallFlagg]

NO ONE should have a life-long appointment. I am STILL trying to figure out who appointed the SCOTUS the arbiters of the Constitution. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for them - yet there they are.

 

[Slyhunter]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

 

[tigerred59]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

 

[Zander]

I favor a single 18 year term.

Since the early 1990s I’ve been writing op-eds backing the Good Government reform idea that Supreme Court nominees shouldn’t get lifetime appointments, but instead a single 18-year term. Since there are 9 Justices, that would mean a nomination fight would come up every two years. Win four years in the White House, you get to nominate two Justices. Win six years in the Senate, you get to vote on three nominations.

This would somewhat lower the pressure on each nomination, which presently can last more than twice 18 years (especially with longer lifespans). It would greatly reduce the frequency of mentally decrepit Justices like Thurgood Marshall trying to hang on until a change in Presidents.
A single 18 year term for Supreme Court Justices
​

 

[Cecilie1200]

Scalia's death just brought up the topic.

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

You'd need a Constitutional amendment to change that wouldn't you?

Article lll Sec. l
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Why would you want to expose another branch of your government to the temptations of the revolving door. Damn, that's all you need, supreme court justices influenced in their decisions by enticingly lucrative corporate prospects post service. Better to have them die on the bench even if you hate them.

Ok forget the term limits but there needs to be a mandatory retirement age of 65. Right now the average age a Supreme Court justice is 69.7 years old and senility is starting to set in.

If a Justice becomes senile or otherwise incompetent to perform his duties, he can and should be removed from office. If he's not, that is the fault of the people and their representatives being so reluctant and squeamish to exercise their proper and lawful powers.

Meanwhile, it would be silly of us to deny our nation the benefit of so much learning and experience simply because of the number of years over which it was acquired.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Life-tenured justices should serve per good behavior. Failure to act on unjust decisions has created a junta that controls the legislature and, since Marbury v Madison, made for life five men the final arbiter of all valuations in the United States.

Lifetime tenures were once a good idea, but the court has become corrupt.

And whose fault is it that the courts have become corrupt and arrogant? I say it's our own fault, for being unwilling to use the checks available to us.