It is unfair to the citizens of the U. S. To have to have a court case go to the Supreme Court only to be judged by people who are in cognitive decline, Which happens to every single human being at some point. Although some people live into their 90's with good mental acumen, It is not the norm and even if a person does maintain good mental acumen until then, Processing information has definitely slowed down by that time. And, As stated in another comment, People do get set in their ways and don't want to be bothered about new ways. Age and wisdom are virtue but as with the physical body, They do erode over time. By the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, It is imperative that the crayons in the box are sharp.
Everyone losses some mental capabilities when we reach a certain age and yet we overlook or pretend its not happening to members of the supreme court, No one should be above the law and the supreme court for sure but they won't regulate them selves as time after time has shown so their needs to be mandatory retirement to ensure discissions made are with 9 fully capable people making them.
Our Justice System requires that each judge primarily rely upon his/her own opinions and not the opinions of others. As judges age and their mental faculties diminish, in order to remain a judge, they cannot help but to rely on other judges that likely share their same viewpoint. In doing so, we have less than the required number of judges; instead, we have some justices essentially controlling the opinions of those with diminished faculties. The idea of judges holding out until the party which appointed them is again in the majority to ensure the continuity of similar viewpoints is wrong. It would be ideal if we could come up with criteria to determine when a judge's diminished mental faculties make him/her unable to continue as a judge; yet, applying these criteria would be subject to intense political pressure. Age, on the other hand, is a very objective criteria. When a judge reaches a certain age, he/she must step down. Even this is not a perfect solution since people's mental faculties diminish at different ages. For some, although their bodies wear out, their mental faculties do not. Of course we must have an age limit for judges.
In her seventies she was sleeping on the job. What do you think she is doing now in her 80s “The subject matter was extremely technical,” notes AP writer Gina Holland, “and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair.”
Actual artist rendition of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asleep during hearing
During a report by Megyn Kendall of Fox News, an artist’s sketch of the hearing was aired with Ginsburg’s head using the bench as a pillow.
There was no word if there was any audible snoring echoing through the esteemed chamber, but the sleep session was noticed by Ginsburg’s colleagues who made a snap judgment to let their associate continue her slumber.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35058/#2H6DwQFfkFtcw2I0.99
It would serve two purposes, first, it would get younger appointees and second, it would keep inflexible, set in their ways people with probable declining health (mental and physical) off the highest court in the land. IF we can't have term limits then lets get a mandatory retirement age going.
DOnt mess with his penis balls, cuz its his penis balls, PNEINS BALS BES HS SHS SHS SHS SH H H NH J BJ BJ J JK J BJ J JKJKJ K JK J KJ K J K J KJ K J K JK K KKK KKK KKK KKK Bush did 911
Our political system is wrought with liars, special interest groups etc. When a Supreme Justice Judge, interjects a political or personal opinion into a decision they should immediately be forced to retire or step down! Period! Loose the integrity of the Supreme Justice and we surrender the values of this nation!
Supreme Court justices loose their awareness and ability to make correct decisions. Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.
There should be an age limit for Supreme Court justices. It should be around eighty five years of age. If justices become too old their awareness and judgement might not be what it needs to be. Making a limit will solve the problem by making it a law. It is currently set up that a judge could be on there until they are 100 years old.
I believe there should be a mandatory retirement age for U.S. Supreme Court justices. The justices of our Supreme Court have gained much valuable legal experience in their years of service. They have gained wisdom and vast amounts of knowledge. However, even the most educated and physically fit people reach a point of diminished capacity when they reach a certain age. It is the nature of being human, and there should be a set age agreed upon to retire.
The framers of the Constituition in Article 3 Sec. 1 included a provision that all federal judges "shall hold their offices during good Behaviour". That phrase indicates those positions are to be for life, Unless the judges behavior dictates removal. While Congress has the power to pass legislation into law, The law is still subject to the scrutiny of the federal courts as to whether it comports to the requirements of the Constitution, It is unlikely that any law imposing mandatory retirement upon the members of the federal judiciary would pass constitutional scrutiny by the courts. In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Clearly, A law mandating that a judge must retire at a certain age is in direct conflict with Article 3, Sec. 1 and most certainly would be struck down as unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison established the rule that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. ’
Furthermore, Establishing a mandatory retirement age from the federal bench was considered and dismissed by the framers. In Addressing the issue of imposing a mandatory retirement age on judges, Alexander Hamilton, Noting that New York had imposed 60 as the age of mandatory retiremen, Twrote "There is no station in relation to which it is less proper than to that of a judge. The deliberating and comparing faculties generally preserve their strength much beyond that period, In men who survive it; and when in addition to this circumstance, We consider how few there are who outlive the season of intellectual vigour, And how improbable it is that any considerable proportion of the bench, Whether more or less numerous, Should be in such a situation at the same time, We shall be ready to conclude that limitations of this sort have little to recommend them. In a republic, Where fortunes are not affluent, And pensions not expedient, The dismission of men from stations in which they have served their country long and usefully, On which they depend for subsistence, And from which it will be too late to resort to any other occupation for a livelihood, Ought to have some better apology to humanity, Than is to be found in the imaginary danger of a superannuated bench. " In short, Age alone is not a barometer of ability to make reasoned and principled decisions.
There is a mechanism in the Constitution to remove federal judges through impeachment, And this has been used numerous times since the beginning of the republic.
Absent a constitutional amendment, Which can take years to ratify if passed, Federal judges cannot be forced to retire their positions.
No, not all court justices start at the same ago and so it would be unfair to put an age on retirement. Some people actually enjoy their job and do not want to retire. This may be true for those in the U.S. Supreme Court. Also with ago comes wisdom, meaning the older the justice the more experience and the better job is done.