• 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

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.
 
i vote yes.....lifetime appointment

but with a caveat

they all must show still being of sound mind.....

i like the experience and wisdom of age.....but we all know that the longer we live, the chance of something happening to our mental faculties

as long as they stay sharp.....keep em on the bench
 
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.

If their term is not for life, they must be totally secure in their pension income and be barred from later employment.
 
i vote yes.....lifetime appointment

but with a caveat

they all must show still being of sound mind.....

i like the experience and wisdom of age.....but we all know that the longer we live, the chance of something happening to our mental faculties

as long as they stay sharp.....keep em on the bench

I think that lifetime appointments, combined with the concept of judicial review that was established with Marbury vs Madison gives people with such lengthy terms too much power in a democratic system.
 
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.

With very few exceptions most past SCOTUS justices have served for less than 16 years. We now have a more than the average number of long serving SCOTUS justices (5 currently serving for more than 16 years).

List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The average age of SCOTUS appointees is still over 50 so we can expect them to serve no more than 30 years (1,5 generations?) which is not really that long in terms of history.

Are Supreme Court Nominees Getting Younger? - Smart Politics
 
With very few exceptions most past SCOTUS justices have served for less than 16 years. We now have a more than the average number of long serving SCOTUS justices (5 currently serving for more than 16 years).

List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The average age of SCOTUS appointees is still over 50 so we can expect them to serve no more than 30 years (1,5 generations?) which is not really that long in terms of history.

Are Supreme Court Nominees Getting Younger? - Smart Politics

Well, like you said, we have five that are over 16 years and that it way too long. Think about it, these guys have the power to strike down laws passed by a democratically elected congress. That is a lot of power to give to people to have until they see fit to retire.
 
Well, like you said, we have five that are over 16 years and that it way too long. Think about it, these guys have the power to strike down laws passed by a democratically elected congress. That is a lot of power to give to people to have until they see fit to retire.

Laws (or executive actions) that violate the constitution, either by exceeding federal constitutional powers or by violating rights of the states/people, should be stuck down. IMHO, the SCOTUS has not done enough to strike down laws that violate the constitution, for example where does the constitution grant federal power over education, to give funds to individuals (or companies) not in exchange for any specific goods/services or the ability to tax people based on how they did not spend their money?
 
Laws (or executive actions) that violate the constitution, either by exceeding federal constitutional powers or by violating rights of the states/people, should be stuck down. IMHO, the SCOTUS has not done enough to strike down laws that violate the constitution, for example where does the constitution grant federal power over education, to give funds to individuals (or companies) not in exchange for any specific goods/services or the ability to tax people based on how they did not spend their money?

I agree that laws that violate the constitution should be struck down. And as a matter of fact, if it were not for the Supreme Court, I would not have been able to go to school with whites. Its as simple as that. That said however, this is a democracy and giving people the power for life, to strike down laws that the deem unconstitutional gives them quite a bit of power that can be used to subvert the democratic process.

Now to your example, it illustrates the point well. There is all types of language in the constitution, some general and vague, and some that is rather specific. As a result of that depending on how the Justices that are serving at the time want to construe what is in the constitution, they can get whatever federal power that they need. As a result, that demonstrates the need for Justices to serve for a limited amount of time.
 
Absolutely not!! Two 6 year terms with a confirmation vote by the Senate after the first 6 years for the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts. New SC judges should be come from the Circuit Court judges who have served at least one full 6 year term and have passed the 6 year confirmation vote.
 
I agree that laws that violate the constitution should be struck down. And as a matter of fact, if it were not for the Supreme Court, I would not have been able to go to school with whites. Its as simple as that. That said however, this is a democracy and giving people the power for life, to strike down laws that the deem unconstitutional gives them quite a bit of power that can be used to subvert the democratic process.

Now to your example, it illustrates the point well. There is all types of language in the constitution, some general and vague, and some that is rather specific. As a result of that depending on how the Justices that are serving at the time want to construe what is in the constitution, they can get whatever federal power that they need. As a result, that demonstrates the need for Justices to serve for a limited amount of time.

On the flip side, it would force SCOTUS turnover regardless of their actions, thus increasing political influence over appointments. In any case, it would require a constitutional amendment to limit their terms. Allowing justices to retire when their likely replacement shares their ideological veiws is not such a bad thing, as it may help to reduce political influence rather than to increase it.
 
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.

I would tend to agree. Two reasons. One, people live much longer today and two political parties have used, put younger people on the bench so that a president elected today can have an impact for the next 40 years.
 
On the flip side, it would force SCOTUS turnover regardless of their actions, thus increasing political influence over appointments. In any case, it would require a constitutional amendment to limit their terms. Allowing justices to retire when their likely replacement shares their ideological veiws is not such a bad thing, as it may help to reduce political influence rather than to increase it.

I don't think it is possible to avoid political influence, and the problem with the lifetime appointments is that the political influence can extend across 40 years or more. It is very rare that judges abandon the views of the political influences that put them their, although it has been done.
 
I would tend to agree. Two reasons. One, people live much longer today and two political parties have used, put younger people on the bench so that a president elected today can have an impact for the next 40 years.

Agreed. These people can stay in there far too long, way past their time.
 
Brain Starts to Deteriorate From Age 45: Study

Researchers gave a number of cognitive tests to 5,198 men and 2,192 women ages 45 to 70 three times over the course of 10 years. The study participants were assessed on memory, reasoning, vocabulary and aural and visual comprehension.

Declines were seen in all areas except for vocabulary, and as people got older there was a faster drop. Over the 10 years, men ages 45 to 49 saw a 3.6% decline in mental reasoning. Those 65 to 70 saw a 9.6% drop. In women the declines were 3.6% for those 45 to 49 and 7.4% for those 65 to 70

Enough said.

Brain Starts to Deteriorate From Age 45: Study, Mental Health | ePharmaPedia
 
80 is the limit...and even then, every year they must pass a 'sound mind' test...no matter how young they are.

Same should go for the POTUS and the VPOTUS, btw.


Over 320 million people in America, there is no need for people in these extremely important positions hanging on until death when there are plenty of very well qualified people to replace them.
 
why?????????????

If you read the thread I have clearly said why. Again, the power of judicial review that was established with Marbury vs Madison gives the Supreme Court the power to render sterile legislation enacted by a democratically elected Congress. That is far too much power to give to people with lifetime appointments.
 
I think one of the greatest things about the Supreme Court is that they aren't subject to political influence because of their lifetime appointment. If Justice Roberts votes to keep Obamacare there are no consequences, he doesn't have to worry about what he will do once he leaves the Court.

I also think that limiting the term of the Supremes would lead to flip-flopping as the balance of power shifted continually. With the current system, Justices tend to retire once the party they favor is in office, so that their replacement tends to have similar political views. If you force them to retire after say 12 or 16 years then some Justices nominated by Republicans would end up replaced by Democrats, or vice-versa. For example, if Hillary Clinton wins two terms as President that would mean the entire court would be nominated by Democrats. Then if the Republicans win a few terms the Court would shift, and likely overturn many of the previous rulings.

So this is a very bad idea.
 
I like have a technocratic elite that is insulated (as much as possible) from the machinations of politics. If anything I think the Supreme Court and the judiciary has become to accessible and too willing to discuss their views. I'd like to restrict the ability of judges to give speeches, hold talks, and other events to the public while in office though I'm not sure if there is a way to do that and have it pass Constitutional muster.
 
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.

The entire S.C. being changed out every two term president or every other two term president? No thank you.
 
If their term is not for life, they must be totally secure in their pension income and be barred from later employment.

Why? Why shouldn't they be free to do something non-law related later on?
 
Why? Why shouldn't they be free to do something non-law related later on?

Because that opens the door to corruption. Scratch my back here and you will get rich as consultant later. The court makes decisions worth huge amounts of money.
 
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.

For a sense of comparison, Canada's Supreme Court Justices must retire upon reaching 75, if not sooner of their own choice.
 
Im against the call for increased democratization at all levels of government. We benefit from a system which has many parts that operate differently, counterbalancing the excesses found in any. A Supreme Court justice needs to be given as much time as they need to serve. Term limits are a bad idea.

Elitism must be properly utilized, not shunned.
 
Because that opens the door to corruption. Scratch my back here and you will get rich as consultant later. The court makes decisions worth huge amounts of money.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom