Amazon.com Widgets

Should judges serve for fixed terms rather than being appointed for life?

  • Yes, judges should be serve for fixed terms.

    First off, many things can change over the course of a lifetime. New laws can be passed; new technologies can be invented. Therefore, it is better to be bringing in fresh perspectives, especially those of people who understand the modern world better. Also, as people age, their brains begin to deteriorate, therefore causing a lack of better judgement. Not only that, these people will keep their biases for much of their life, so it is better to have varied perspectives instead of keeping the same few perspectives, and therefore biases, for decades.

  • Yes.

    However, they should be limited to one term, period. You serve one term. That's it. If you've got judges who serve for life, they're just annoying. While I guess the idea is that if they're appointed for life, they don't have to worry about repercussions from making an unpopular decision, it also gives them a green light to screw everything up by misinterpreting everything intentionally or just because they're morons. You'd probably put more effort into your judging if you knew you'd be looking for a new job after your current one expired. Judges should only serve one fixed term in a given capacity, lest they make stupid yet popular decisions to keep their position.

  • yes.

    Hey, if you were a Judge but, later on you wanted to be say, a cop, but you couldn't because you were a judge for life, that would be denying free will.

  • Yes - they will get tired of their jobs

    Many judges can become tired of jobs and will eventually give out unfair treatment to the innocent. Also just as Benjamin Franklin had once claimed that when he got older, he begun to doubt his own reasons because he could have been wrong easily. Judges would eventually despise their jobs and may confuse who is right and who is wrong.

  • Yes - too much can change

    Just as most other political seats are only available for a fixed time to one person, so should be the case for a judge. Too many things can change in the course of a person's life that they should not be able to hold a job for life. There is too much at stake for the common people.

  • Avoid old-fashioned and dated minds, support the new and progressive.

    So many judges already struggle to tend to their cases without either having or gaining some sort of bias. The last thing we need is biased, corrupt judges staying longer to grow even older and more weary. Out with the old, in with the new. The pace at which they handle cases also needs to be regulated severely. No more misdemeanor perpetrators sleeping in cells because the judge considers their time more important than everyone else's.

  • As technology and society advances, as well as the average lifespan of people, it is important that those that protect our law stay in touch.

    Although the average age of a judge when first appointed to a federal has increased slightly since the 1800s (48->52, an increase of about 8% ) the average age of the entire bench has increased DRAMATICALLY. In 1813 the average age was 54, in 2011 it was 68, an increase of about 26%. Many modern judges begin to pass judgements on laws for things that they no longer understand as society or technology has advanced and they have lost touch. Look at how many senators simply did not understand even the basic idea of how Facebook works.

    An 18 year term is plenty (same time as midterms for a president). Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to supreme court at age 60 in 1993 after already serving 13 years as a federal judge. She has been on supreme court for 25 years now and is likely only holding out because of Trump & would have retired under Clinton.

    An 18 year appointment gives more time for a president to prepare to vet a judge. This should also help stop holding a judge hostage because you hate the president (looking at you Ryan/McConnell, don't be surprised if Dems take your scumbag lead and just as unfairly do the same thing to Trump).

  • I like cows

    Judges appointed for life make more money than judges appointed for a certain amount of time. They could use this money to help themselves, and they could use it to donate to charity too. Also, another pro of having a lifetime term is that people become more trustworthy as they age. His will help the judges and the court. Lastly, another pro is that the IQ of the judge will get higher as they age. This will help them solve more cases faster and easier.

  • Yes, the judges' life long term is a good thing.

    The justices have a guarantee of the job for life, unless they quit or get impeached. The Supreme Court has no retirement age, so the judges do not have a specific age to stop. The judges’ salary can also not be reduced, so they get paid the same amount every time.

  • Read my reason lol

    If the judge violates a law that is only illegal in some states, because of the life term, we cannot do anything about it. They won't be removed from office unless they are impeached, quit, or die. Another reason is if the judge makes decisions that the country doesn't like, they have the right to and can't get fired because of it.

  • Defeats purpose of judiciary

    A major purpose of the Supreme Court is to be a thorn in the side of congress and the president. They strike down laws for being unconstitutional and are not supposed to ever make new public policies. If presidents could appoint a new court whenever the judges' term limits ran out, the court would essentially turn into a puppet of the president. Notice that the cabinet almost never opposes the president's policies? It's because he hand picked them all. If each president would have the ability to point a majority do justices to the bench, you would lose the reason for having the court in the first place. Lifetime appointments mean that the policy makers have to convince people who may have different philosophies that the laws being passed are constitutional.

  • No earning the privilege is a reward

    I don't think there should be fixed terms for supreme court justices. They have earned the position after years of hard work and are being rewarded. If you cap their term it may lead to issues where as their term is ending they are careless or try to incite too much change.

  • No

    I think that judges need to keep up on their knowledge so not to seem outdated, or unaware of the ways around them, for times DO in fact change, while people like to stay stuck in their ways, but I don't think that judges should have a fixed term. If someone does their job, does their job well, bettering their community then why should they stop? I understand that the definition of a job well done in itself is up for debate, but even so, if enough people think they aren't doing well enough, them they get taken from their position anyway. Let them do their job as long as their doing it right, and retire as they should. I imagine it takes much schooling, and determination and headaches to become a judge. They earned their salary, their position, and the right to be at the bench until they so choose.

  • No.

    Errr...you know judges can retire right? If they are not appointed for life, then they will get sweeped up in politics and worry about winning their next tern. And you can't have that with a supreme court judge. There is no reason a judge should be brought into the world of politics.

  • Judges should not serve for fixed terms

    Judges should not be served for fixed terms, because it doesn't make the president stressful, you would have nothing to worry about, and people will be happy. If we had judges be served for fixed terms it would put too much stress on Donald Trump, because he already has, so much stuff to do that finding a new judge will just be on top of his busy stressful list. If judges did not serve for fixed terms then no one would have to worry about picking a new one until the judge gets impeached, dies, quits, or retires. Lastly we should not let judges serve for fixed terms, because we want people to be happy, and get a judge of their choice. If the last judge was not people taste then maybe the next judge is, and they really like them so we want them to live a happy life and give them a chance with a judge they like. That is why judges should not be served for fixed terms.

  • Judges should not serve for fixed terms

    Judges should not be served for fixed terms, because it doesn't make the president stressful, you would have nothing to worry about, and people will be happy. If we had judges be served for fixed terms it would put too much stress on Donald Trump, because he already has, so much stuff to do that finding a new judge will just be on top of his busy stressful list. If judges did not serve for fixed terms then no one would have to worry about picking a new one until the judge gets impeached, dies, quits, or retires. Lastly we should not let judges serve for fixed terms, because we want people to be happy, and get a judge of their choice. If the last judge was not people taste then maybe the next judge is, and they really like them so we want them to live a happy life and give them a chance with a judge they like. That is why judges should not be served for fixed terms.

  • Judges should not serve for fixed terms

    Judges should not be served for fixed terms, because it doesn't make the president stressful, you would have nothing to worry about, and people will be happy. If we had judges be served for fixed terms it would put too much stress on Donald Trump, because he already has, so much stuff to do that finding a new judge will just be on top of his busy stressful list. If judges did not serve for fixed terms then no one would have to worry about picking a new one until the judge gets impeached, dies, quits, or retires. Lastly we should not let judges serve for fixed terms, because we want people to be happy, and get a judge of their choice. If the last judge was not people taste then maybe the next judge is, and they really like them so we want them to live a happy life and give them a chance with a judge they like. That is why judges should not be served for fixed terms.

  • Judges should not be served for fixed terms.

    Judges should not be served for fixed terms, because it doesn't make the president stressful, you would have nothing to worry about, and people will be happy. If we had judges be served for fixed terms it would put too much stress on Donald Trump, because he already has, so much stuff to do that finding a new judge will just be on top of his busy stressful list. If judges did not serve for fixed terms then no one would have to worry about picking a new one until the judge gets impeached, dies, quits, or retires. Lastly we should not let judges serve for fixed terms, because we want people to be happy, and get a judge of their choice. If the last judge was not people taste then maybe the next judge is, and they really like them so we want them to live a happy life and give them a chance with a judge they like. That is why judges should not be served for fixed terms.

  • No, Judges Should Not Serve For Fixed Terms

    I believe that judges should not serve for fixed terms for many reasons. First, if there are term-limits, they may kick out good judges who deserve to stay. When someone is very good at their job, they should be able to stay, and they should even sometimes get more recognition. Next, if there are term-limits, there will have to be more elections. Having more elections means the government would have to spend even more money. This will make the U.S. even more in debt, which is definitely what we do not want. Finally, judges that have served for a long time know what they are doing, and they are less likely to make mistakes in court. With new judges, it might be hard for them to get used to things, and they might constantly mess up. I think that by having no fixed terms, it will be easier, and things will go more smooth.

  • No, judges should not have fixed terms.

    In the United States, there is one job that has no term limit, and a person can do that job forever. That job is being a judge. There has been many arguments over if a judge should have a term limit, and I believe judges should not have a term limit. Here are some reasons to why I believe judges should not have a term limit. First, if there are term-limits, they may kick out good judges who deserve to stay. When someone is very good at their job, they should be able to stay, and they should even sometimes get more recognition. Next, if there are term-limits, there will have to be more elections. Having more elections means the government would have to spend even more money. This will make the U.S. even more in debt, which is definitely what we do not want. Finally, judges that have served for a long time know what they are doing, and they are less likely to make mistakes in court. With new judges, it might be hard for them to get used to things, and they might constantly mess up. That is why judges should not have a term-limit, and have to get reelected.


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