• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Supreme Court Justices Serve For Life?

Should Supreme Court Justices Serve For Life?

  • Total voters
    29
Cephus said:
We already have a corrupt court, the whole system of electing justices is corrupt. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be done along party lines, pushing people with a particular agenda. I'm much less worried about what might happen after they get off the court than I am about what puts them on the court in the first place.
Click to expand...

I do not agree that the political alignment with parties means or even implies corruption. It would have negative impact should too many be installed by one party.


But you should be extremely worried about their being bought by forward agreement.

That is what appears to have happened with the German Chancellor who was very helpful tuto Putin in his support of Saddam and in increasing Germany's dependence on Russian energy. He now works for putin's people.
 
CanadaJohn said:
For a sense of comparison, Canada's Supreme Court Justices must retire upon reaching 75, if not sooner of their own choice.
Click to expand...

Make it 85.
 
joG said:
I do not agree that the political alignment with parties means or even implies corruption. It would have negative impact should too many be installed by one party.


But you should be extremely worried about their being bought by forward agreement.

That is what appears to have happened with the German Chancellor who was very helpful tuto Putin in his support of Saddam and in increasing Germany's dependence on Russian energy. He now works for putin's people.
Click to expand...

Which is why having the parties involved at all is problematic. The whole job of the Supremes is to interpret the Constitution, not to force their own beliefs and the beliefs of their political masters onto the Constitution. They ought to be wholly independent of the rest of the government.

And let's be honest, there's no reason they can't be bought now. A company can promise a high-paying job to their families in exchange for favorable rulings. It doesn't have to be just the Supremes that are offered freebies.
 
Cephus said:
Which is why having the parties involved at all is problematic. The whole job of the Supremes is to interpret the Constitution, not to force their own beliefs and the beliefs of their political masters onto the Constitution. They ought to be wholly independent of the rest of the government.

And let's be honest, there's no reason they can't be bought now. A company can promise a high-paying job to their families in exchange for favorable rulings. It doesn't have to be just the Supremes that are offered freebies.
Click to expand...

True, the children of judges will work and might have careers that might be helped along. It does not convince me.
I also do not understand why you want to look for the judges in apolitical circles. you arguments here do not make me believe that we need to change the situation nor that it would improve anything.
I think I would leave it as it is.
 
joG said:
Make it 85.
Click to expand...

Most Supreme Court Justices here are appointed in their early 50s so, for me, 20 years on the court is sufficient considering they've also had decades on lower court benches prior to appointment. There's an unlimited supply of others who can fill vacancies - there are only 9 positions - and fresh thinking is always a benefit. I don't want politicians in office for 20 years up, why would Supreme Court Justices be any different, particularly since some seem to think it's their role to legislate from the court.
 
Yes. They should serve for life, just as the consitition has been interpreted that they should to date.
 
MildSteel said:
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.
Click to expand...

I think it's a good idea that they serve for life. It means there are fewer ways for special interest groups to influence them.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Most Supreme Court Justices here are appointed in their early 50s so, for me, 20 years on the court is sufficient considering they've also had decades on lower court benches prior to appointment. There's an unlimited supply of others who can fill vacancies - there are only 9 positions - and fresh thinking is always a benefit. I don't want politicians in office for 20 years up, why would Supreme Court Justices be any different, particularly since some seem to think it's their role to legislate from the court.
Click to expand...

Somehow I have always been fond the idea of continuity in the interpretation of the Constitution and only slow rotation of the judges. It is sort of a balance to the pressure from popular fashions, adaptive pressures and hectic reactiins legislative and executive branches of government are subject to. That in mind I liked the indefinite length of service and low probability of one head of government and Congress responsible for a large number of appointments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom