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 lol ll

    Yes lol lol lol lol lol lol ll lol lol lol lol ll ll lll lll lll ll ll ll ll ll ll lll lll llll llll l l l l l. L l l l l. L l l l l. L l l l l

  • 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

  • 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.

  • No no no

    Just like being in the senate and in the house of representatives there should be term limits for the supreme court. New and younger people would give better ideas for new laws. In addition, Term limits would push justices to make a change happen because they will know that there is a limited amount of time.

  • It is not democracy

    My personal reason is that they need serve a shorter time because if we have new people we will different out looks in my opinon they should only serve ten years at most it would help. Right now they just have to much power, If it was shortened to ten years they would fear being kicked more.

  • No No No

    Just like being in the senate and in the house of representatives there should be term limits for the supreme court. New and younger people would give better ideas for new laws. In addition, Term limits would push justices to make a change happen because they will know that there is a limited amount of time.

  • Jsa kmas kascnm

    Sjknsca basjkcnksa sacbjaskcnk scbkbckaj asjcbjasbcka scbaksjcbk ascbascbasjcbs cscbsbcajscba sc akscbascasc sbcsjacbasjb sajcnjn lacsn jasncjsncj kl;anslclsjab slancnnnnnsc lnsac msn nak;lncsbjdvo ajsd;v;j ojascihdjhvjs jcsjh jjjjas sjknca jsa kmas ioaefhev evudasuoO VSDB oehav eohvoefuwav oejfoweh ejvsiohnos; ewhofjefj iaiefcn eofjwasji esjjvoisj ejfosijecio ecmsiomvoi jioswvcoikcio iejcmsoicm sejicmosekmciescmioescm eokcoec, E, Msc ec, Ecm ekcfokspeks efkcspkcsac ekcpos ekckwse kceowp ckespokc.

  • They should not it is to long

    People don't deserve to serve so long so what if it a goverment job it is to long i mean who would want to serve so long waht if you hate it 3hat if you want to get a differet job but this blocks it okay so make it lower

  • 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


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