Amazon.com Widgets
  • Supreme justices should serve a life time.

    I'm right because of check & balances. Let me explain as stated above " It also allows for better checks and balances..." this means the make a lot of money. That can come in handy but if someone take that place they lose their money and jobs for that field are hard to find. Another point is they are immune to political pressure. Also stated above; " this gives them kind of neutrality that is supposed to make them immune to political pressure..." this means that the justices don't have to worry who is running for presidency or who is president because they can't be re-appointed. Let s say that they did have to worry about having a non-life term, then the president can simply say " your no longer needed" and fire him/her because it would matter they would be leaving in two to three years so its not that important if I fire him/her.

  • Supreme Court Justices Should Serve for Life

    Life time appointment of Supreme Court Justices decreases politics on the Court. It also allows for better checks and balances since the members of the Court do not have to fear re-appointment by either of the other branches of government. You want justices that act in a constitutional mandated matter rather than trying to curry favor among politicians.

  • Yes, I think Supreme Court justicies should serve for life.

    I believe that once you are appointed to the Supreme Court you should be able to serve for life, I feel that this adds a degree of depth on who is nominated to join the Supreme Court since it is a lifelong appointment and there is no going back once appointed.

  • Yes,supreme court justices should serve for life.

    Yes,supreme court justices should serve for life.This gives them a kind of neutrality that is supposed to make them immune to political pressure although this is not always the case.Some people want supreme court justices to be elected but this would totally jeopardize their neutrality and prevent them from really doing their job.

  • Aaaaaaaaaaw wwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww

    T t tt w w w w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w ww w w w w w w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w g g G

  • They should stay in for life

    The reason other politicians stay get elected is to allow them to properly represent the changing society. But the supreme court does not represent the people it represents the constitution which hardly ever changes so therefor judges can stay in for life (on good behavior) and still represent the constitution just fine.
    Also people have said that they will and have abused their power after a long time but the constitution provides for impeachment so if they tart abusing their power then impeach them and don't worry about how long they stay in because it's only on good behavior.Which insures that we have good behaving judges.

  • Yes. They old but they sexy man

    Have you ever seen old man johnson running around town with those phatty weights that he got with his weight watchers program. That man has some fat calves like dang that ol bag of skin, smelling like moth balls mothertrucker is my role model. I went to his house one day and gave him a smooch just because he looks like homer simpson if he actually aged, dudes like 70 years old by now right? I mean that shows been around for 20 years, idk how old Homer is in the show but he must be pretty old right. Well old people are so fricken smart so theres no reason they should run our country #jillstein2016

  • Yes yes yes

    Do you want young supreme justices who don't really know what their doing, we need older justices who have studied the constitution for a long time and understand it, The one bad thing about old justices is that they have a higher chance of dying, but if you ask me that's the price to pay so we can have good justices.

  • Donald trump is awesome its going to be huge

    Donaldddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd d o n a l d t r u m p i s a w e s o m e! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ITS GOING TO BE HUGE

  • Yes they should

    Because my History teacher is making me sd csd sdf sd fsd f sdf sd fsdf d d d d dd d d d d d d d d d h h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

  • No - this aspect of the constitution is outdated.

    While the same constitution that defined terms for various aspects of government also defined the very life tenure that I am arguing against, it was based upon the context of the time period. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin addressed this by saying, ”The Constitution was written at a time when life tenure meant living into your 50s because that's what life expectancy was. Thirty-year tenures are not what the framers had in mind." In fact, The New York Times commented on the most recently elected supreme court justice, saying, ”Judge Gorsuch, (age) 49, could serve on the court for 30 years or more.” Thus this aspect of the constitution is obviously outdated and creates the problem of having supreme court justices who are just too old. Professor David Garrow of the Emory University School of Law said that, "The history of the Court is replete with repeated instances of justices casting decisive votes… when their colleagues and/or families had serious doubts about their mental capacities.” We should not allow the highest court in the nation to be plagued with problems of mental capacity merely because there is no term limit.

  • The Supreme Court Death Watch harms society

    Checks and balances would be preserved if justices had terms which were long, say 15 years, but not lifetime. The idea that justices are currently outside politics under the current system went out the window in 2000... The supreme court is highly political. Lifetime terms create several problems.
    Life terms prevents justices from accepting a well deserved retirement, even if their health or mental condition demands it, for fear that they will be replaced by someone with opposing political views. Having lifetime terms has also created a perverse "Supreme Court death watch" where partisans are openly HOPING for the death of another human being. Lifetime terms separate justices from the society they stand in judgement over. How can someone who is gauranteed a job for life truly understand the concerns of ordinary americans who must prove themselves simply to keep their jobs? Knowing that when a president picks a supreme court justice it is for life has contributed to the polarization of US politics and the idea that everything rides on this vote, and that hinders our ability as a society to compromise.

  • No they shouldn't

    People get old. That’s just how life works. And sometimes when people get old, they can forget things or get easily hurt and end up bedridden. This proves that if a supreme court justice starts to forget things, or get seriously hurt, that's when some people have to say no. Say no so that they can take a break or quit fully if they need to. If someone is dying, and they’re still forced to serve, that’s taking time away from their family. Trying to hold back tears and saying goodbye.

  • That's just forcing them to give their life away.

    People get old. That’s just how life works. And sometimes when people get old, they can forget things or get easily hurt and end up bedridden. This proves that if a supreme court justice starts to forget things, or get seriously hurt, that's when some people have to say no. Say no so that they can take a break or quit fully if they need to. If someone is dying, and they’re still forced to serve, that’s taking time away from their family. Trying to hold back tears and saying goodbye.

  • That's just forcing them to give their life away.

    People get old. That’s just how life works. And sometimes when people get old, they can forget things or get easily hurt and end up bedridden. This proves that if a supreme court justice starts to forget things, or get seriously hurt, that's when some people have to say no. Say no so that they can take a break or quit fully if they need to. If someone is dying, and they’re still forced to serve, that’s taking time away from their family. Trying to hold back tears and saying goodbye.

  • No they shouldn't

    I don't think that supreme court justices should serve for life. This could cause an abuse of power. The justices could begin thinking one way and someone could think differently which could cause a clash between ideas. Another reason is a change in society. Younger people could want to run for supreme court justice but cant if they serve for life.

  • No i dont think they should

    No bhgyugyuggyg hbgygyuhjghjgjhgyhjyuhjyuh hjn h h h hhhbn j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j jbg gg g h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h hh h hh h h h h h h

  • No. Supreme Court Justices need not serve for life to satisfy checks and balances.

    Yes! They are appointed for life in order to maintain the separation of powers. If they needed to be re-elected, they would become too focused on pleasing the public rather than doing what is Constitutionally right. Also, if judges served terms, then one president may happen to appoint several judges who have the same viewpoints as him/her. This would give the president WAY too much power. Lastly, having judges appointed from different generations or times increases diversity of opinions and thoughts.

  • 10 year limit

    10 year appointment. No reappointment. Vetted by super majority.

    No one in our governmental branches should have a life membership.

    Also, term limits for ALL politicians. A politician should only be allowed to serve in any given position for limited term and then move on to another that is term limited, and so on. Ex: a mayor after the term limit has been reached, can run for state rep. Congressman after the term limit has been reached can run for senate and vice versa. Two term limits for all positions, same as the President.

  • Justices should have term limits.

    Supreme Court justices should have a term limit for the same reason that all of our elected government officials have term limits. After many years of making decisions the voting public has a right to give feedback on the decisions made by any one of the justices. This feedback may be favorable or unfavorable which could result in one or more terms. That is the point in a republic or democracy.


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