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.

  • 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

  • Justices should give opinions

    Justices are citizens also and there should not be a restriction on their first amendment rights just because they are judges. Only in situations where their opinions conflict with the ability to render an impartial judgment should they recuse themselves. Honestly, do we really think that judges don't have opinions?

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

    Yes! They are appointed for life in order to maintain the seperation 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.

  • 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.

  • No. A Justice need not serve for life to have checks and balances.

    Any and every person filling any judicial or political job has an agenda. It is not something which can be turned off. Any position, elected or appointed, should not be lifetime. The Constitution should always be interpreted in the broadest of terms with any doubt or ambiguity going to the people. As the times change, these changes must be considered without changing the meaning of the Constitution in its broadest interpretation. As people grow older they are not always current.
    If a Justice is appointed, and sits for 12 to 18 years then moves on, the system of checks and balances is still in place. No President nor Congressperson has influence over them or their term other than the “…good Behaviour…” clause of the Constitution. There should also be a rule stating there is no reappointment, thus no thought to making decisions to reassure being reappointed. One person, one term, “thank you for your public service”, and move on.
    Also, nominees from the House of Representatives, the branch of government closest to the people’s voice, should all be considered as well.

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

    Any and every person filling any judicial or political job has an agenda. It is not something which can be turned off. Any position, elected or appointed, should not be lifetime. The Constitution should always be interpreted in the broadest of terms with any doubt or ambiguity going to the people. As the times change, these changes must be considered without changing the meaning of the Constitution in its broadest interpretation. As people grow older they are not always current.
    If a Justice is appointed, and sits for 12 to 18 years then moves on, the system of checks and balances is still in place. No President nor Congressperson has influence over them or their term other than the “…good Behaviour…” clause of the Constitution. There should also be a rule stating there is no reappointment, thus no thought to making decisions to reassure being reappointed. One person, one term, “thank you for your public service”, and move on.
    Also, nominees from the House of Representatives, the branch of government closest to the people’s voice, should all be considered as well.

  • No, they should have term limits

    First, as time passes by, the values of society slowly change. However, this is not reflected by the elderly members of the supreme court who have been serving for decades. If you have a few justices who are living in the past now, imagine how out of touch they will be in another 20 years. Secondly, there is no way to get rid of a justice who isn't doing his or her job.


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