Should the Supreme Court have lifetime appointments?
Debate Rounds (2)
If the argument is to disassociate politics from the judicial branch, then fine, this can still be done with an appointment of 25 years or even less. Lifetime appointments should be disallowed.
I argue for the limitation of time served based on these points:
1- more frequent appointments allows for more judges over time, and thus more expert opinions.
2- the lack of a time limitation is irrational and unnecessary.
3- the time limitation prevents permanent influences from past confirmations.
srhelsel609 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to the forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.