The Instigator
NickLawrence
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
ninjalover36
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Supreme Court Justice's should have life terms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
NickLawrence
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 52607
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

NickLawrence

Con

Once Supreme Court Justice's have sworn in, they are in for life, unless they want to retire or they are fired. They should have an appointed term length.
I look forward to debating with someone who feels like they have good arguments for this absurd real life topic.
ninjalover36

Pro

Yes, because the Supreme Court Justice is a very, very serious court that judges serious issues. Therefore if they don't have life terms, it couldn't be a fair judging the serious issues. These issues make a huge impact on today's society and decide laws for the U.S. If they didn't have life terms who knows what would happen five minutes later. Also the con side never really made arguments they just said that they shouldn't not why they shouldn't therefore their not debating in the least bit.
Debate Round No. 1
NickLawrence

Con

Serving for life is absurd. Once appointed by the Senate, our constitution states in Article III, Section I that "The judges both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." The term "Good Behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges can serve for the rest of their lives; however, they can resign or retire voluntarily.
In 2008, at 72 YEARS OLD, Justice Gingsburg fell asleep during oral arguments. She fell asleep.
Also, let's refer back to Justice Douglas, who had a stroke, later returned back to his duty instead of retiring and news reports show that he often fell asleep on the bench and was so disoriented that the justices decided not to decide any cases in which his vote would matter.
These two examples are very good reasons why a set amount of time should be allowed instead of a lifetime. Who knows what kind of shape this country would be in if we had better and younger Supreme Court Justices in the Court.
Justices need to have a set amount of time to serve because not many people are going to resign from a job that gives you $208,100 a year.
ninjalover36

Pro

ninjalover36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NickLawrence

Con

In Round 1, I think you may have forgotten that we all die at some point and time. The way you were saying "If they didn't have life terms who knows what would happen five minutes later." Well, if a Justice is 94 years old and in Court one day, drops over dead with a heart attack or stroke because their body is shutting down, there will probably be some issues. Let the Justices have 5 or 10 year term lengths.
ninjalover36

Pro

ninjalover36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 3 years ago
AlextheYounga
NickLawrenceninjalover36Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had best arguments