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.

  • Yes, The Longer They Serve The More Experience They Have

    Yes. Supreme Court Justices should serve for life tenure because they will have more experience and will be more knowledgeable on the topics they are talking about. To change life tenure would be too much of a hassle and would require a constitutional amendment which would distract from what they are focused on. Therefore life tenure should stay!

  • Yes, The Longer They Serve The More Experience They Have

    Yes. Supreme Court Justices should serve for life tenure because they will have more experience and will be more knowledgeable on the topics they are talking about. To change life tenure would be too much of a hassle and would require a constitutional amendment which would distract from what they are focused on. Therefore life tenure should stay!

  • They should serve lifetime terms

    They should serve lifetime terms because it allows them to remain politically unpressured and make interpretations based on what the Constitution says, not what the President, Congress, or even what the people say. It is very important that Justice's serve for life so they can build the experience, skills, and judgement necessary to properly enforce and interpret the Constitution. -Elliot Kryger

  • 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

  • Above the law, And it begins at appointment and lasts for life

    Absolute authority corrupts absolutely.
    Lifetime appointment is absolute.
    Impossible for persons not to view the seat is owned by the occupant.
    People even talk of seats as branded by the occupant.
    That effect produces the conclusion that occupants are above the law.
    The same thing occurs with incumbents with no term limits.
    Rather than impartiality, The premise is model for absolutes, And consequential corruption over which the public has no control, Disrupting the goal of democracy.

  • The problem starts with nomination timing.

    If the Supreme Court is intended to interpret the constitution and rule on decisions on behalf of American citizens, No one President / Senate should be able to sway the balance of the court based on luck. By luck I mean the random nature of justices dying or retiring. What if Donald Trump could put 3 or 4 justices on the court in a single presidential term? A better system would make me feel much better about lifetime appointments.

  • Too much political interference

    Look at what happened to Merrick Garland -- and now we have Kavanaugh being shoved through because of political worries on the right and suspicions that Dr. Ford's allegations represent a left-wing ploy. Unseemly, At best. Having, Say, A 7-year term limit would remove the political considerations, And would ensure that each president would most likely have the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court judge.

  • It isn't democracy

    The problem with having supreme court justices that serve for life is that they will become old, outdated, and it will be hard to replace them. If they had a turnover time of about 10 years, then they would still be able to make decisions without fear of being removed (political pressure wouldn't be an issue, in other words) however, there would be opportunity for new justices to be on the court. There needs to be a balance of older and younger people on the court so that there is a variation of opinions and viewpoints. One president shouldn't be able to appoint a justice that will affect the next three generations of citizens, that is just too much power.

  • They can't handle it

    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

  • They can't handle it

    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 because I believe they will lose sight of what they set out to do.

    With a supreme court justice serving for life they may begin to abuse the power they have by trying to instill their own personal agendas. Instead of doing what is constitutionally right for the people. This way if they are appointed for term it will remind them they are on the seat because of the good job the people believe they are doing.

  • There should be a term limit

    When life terms were decided life expectancy was much lower so justices were not serving as long. Also every other position (president, senators ect.) have limited terms. The longer justices stay the more outdated they are. Having term limit brings in new political view. Stops the president from appointing younger less experienced people

  • There should be a term limit

    When life terms were decided life expectancy was much lower so justices were not serving as long. Also every other position (president, senators ect.) have limited terms. The longer justices stay the more outdated they are. Having term limit brings in new political view. Stops the president from appointing younger less experienced people

  • 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.


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