Amazon.com Widgets

Lifetime appointment of supreme court justices: Is the lifetime appointment of supreme court justices a good idea?

  • I agree with lifetime appointments for supreme court justices

    I believe that the supreme court judgment should stay consistent and with a 10 year limit and changes throughout the supreme count could cause unfairness in decisions. What I mean about that is if the same situation that occurred with one judge happens with another judge , one of them could have a different perspective leading to a different conclusion.

  • No position should be for a lifetime

    Limit should be something like death, age 75, or disability/illness causing inability to work meaningfully. Some have suggested a 25 year term-limit, which is also reasonable, and would enable them to gradually create a regular appointment every 3 years which would mean you always have a balance (obviously is someone died early you'd have an extra appointment every once in a while). I think having a fresh perspective periodically is great.

  • Yes, the lifetime appointment for Supreme Court Justices works.

    Although it seems odd to appoint someone for life in a democracy, the Supreme Court really needs to stay steady. A lot of upset or changing of the Justices, when there are only nine, could be detrimental to the country. Their job is to make sure laws are in line with the Constitution rather than voting based on personal belief, so as long as they are upholding what they were appointed to do, having a steady court is more desirable than regularly upsetting the balance.

  • The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court Justices is a good idea because it eliminates conflicts of interest.

    If Supreme Court Justices had to serve a limited term it would influence the decisions they make while on the court. The job of the Supreme Court Justices is to interpret the United States Constitution with as much fairness and as little bias as possible. Supreme Court Justices should not make decisions in order to benefit certain groups or interests and a shorter term would cause this to happen more frequently.

  • Allowing a current political situation to define things for decades to come is a very bad idea.

    Presidents and senators are elected to run and influence the affairs of the nation within their terms of office. By having lifetime appointments to the Supreme (and other courts as well), they instead have powers far beyond their terms. If the electorate wants to change their government, they need to be able to do so. With lifetime Court appointments, they cannot, and political decisions they later regret cannot be corrected for decades. It's "the gift that keep on giving!"

  • No position should be for a lifetime

    Limit should be something like death, age 75, or disability/illness causing inability to work meaningfully. Some have suggested a 25 year term-limit, which is also reasonable, and would enable them to gradually create a regular appointment every 3 years which would mean you always have a balance (obviously is someone died early you'd have an extra appointment every once in a while). I think having a fresh perspective periodically is great.

  • Unacountable dictatorship for life.

    Life time appointments makes it possible to stack our court and make our constitution virtually null and void.
    They can be bribed, intimidated through their families and forced in a number of other ways to bend to the will of evil men and who can stop then? Look
    At today.

  • Lifetime appointment for the Supreme Court isn't a smart idea

    If the Supreme Court justices get very serious ill but doesn't retire, it can be putting someone who may not be in the best mindset in a very powerful position. And not just that, but some very unfit people have stayed in power for a very long time because they feel they can stay there as long as they like and just live off the rewards.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.