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.
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.
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.
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.
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 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.
i think it is a bad idea to have justices on the supreme court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.
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
why?????????????
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.
Why? Why shouldn't they be free to do something non-law related later on?
I think it is a bad idea to have justices on the Supreme Court for life. They should serve 14-16 years at most.
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.