Should Supreme Court Justices be appointed for Life?

I understand some of the reasons for the origins of Supreme Court Justices being appointed for life. So that each new President couldn't fill up the court and stack it in his favor, for one example.

However, seeing as life expectencies today are so much different than they were, is it time to rethink the lifetime appointments? Although part of a panel of justices, does a lifetime appointment grant to much power over too long a time to individuals?

i don't think they should be appointed for life, but i don't know of another good way to do it. if you have a vote, i can see people voting them out only so they can get someone in that will help their agenda, regardless of if the person voted out was doing a good job

Although part of a panel of justices, does a lifetime appointment grant to much power over too long a time to individuals?

Planet_Pluto

You said it yourself - "part of a panel". That's good enough for me to say no, it's not too much power for one individual.

I'm a bit undecided, but generally SCOTUS justices do step down once they start to develop health problems as it is a stressful full-time job. I think there are deeper problems with the court. The reason for the court and the way it operates in the first place is that they are supposed to rule on issues that are beyond politics and beyond electoral processes. In other words, the rights that they're supposed to protect like the right to assembly should not be open to referrendum by the general public nor infused into political races. I think the biggest problem is that SCOTUS has become subject to politics. First it was bench-stacking mostly in reaction to Roe v. Wade (at least that was the reason given for the creation of the doctrine of bench-stacking), and now the idea that when you're voting for a President you're voting for a SCOTUS justice as well is commonplace as a consequence of stacking. If we want to fix SCOTUS I think what we really need to do is come to terms with the fact that it shouldn't be politicized, that protecting rights is simply that and if someone takes issue with a certain practice such as gay marriage they should exercise their own rights to free speech rather than attacking the rights of others by trying to politicize the court. Of course, a bit more accountability would be nice as well.

Only if they are aligned with my political ideology.Engrish_Major

Thats kinda the thing though. Lets say over the course of the next 12 to 16 years, several Justices retire (or expire) while a Republican holds the White House. The court could become so slanted to the right and it could take decades before a course correction could be made (feel free to substitute Democrat for Republican in this example).

Also, lets say a right-leaning Justice is contemplating retiring, I can't help but think he/she would wait until there is a Republican President.

Appointed for life is silly. They should be voted on like everything else.

Considering a lot of Congressmen have been in Congress since the 1970s (see Newt Gingrich), I really don't think that making the Supreme Court Justice position electable will make much difference, to be honest.

No, simply because things change overtime, and past events have shown that the justices aren't always keeping up with the times. I really can't think of a better way to appoint them though. Voting them in would not only be quite a hassle, but that would just make justices focus more on the political side of things as opposed to actually wanting to be a good justice (as it is now with Congress and the Presidency). I would support terms for appointments, but I still can't think of a good way to have justices reseated or selected without one party or the other having an advantage just because they're the one currently in control of the presidency or Congress.

Appointed for life is silly. They should be voted on like everything else.

Wasdie

Upon what grounds would voters be expected to base their decision?

No, I think they should stay appointed for life.

We don't need people who will make decisions solely because they're up for re-election.

We don't need people who will make decisions solely because they're up for re-election.

airshocker

This, the thought of the public voting for Supreme Court justices is terrifying

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

i don't think they should be appointed for life, but i don't know of another good way to do it. if you have a vote, i can see people voting them out only so they can get someone in that will help their agenda, regardless of if the person voted out was doing a good job

thegerg

Just to restate what some others are saying, there are other options to lifetime appointments than general elections.

Although this isn't set in stone, I'm thinking about something along the lines of (maybe) being appointed to, say, a 10 year term. Perhaps after that 10 year term, they can have re-confirmation hearings or something like that.

Just to restate what some others are saying, there are other options to lifetime appointments than general elections.

Although this isn't set in stone, I'm thinking about something along the lines of (maybe) being appointed to, say, a 10 year term. Perhaps after that 10 year term, they can have re-confirmation hearings or something like that.

Planet_Pluto

That seems reasonable.

What about Judges from the State Supreme Courts electing (or having some sort of say) in appointments?

Without any doubt. Putting a certain term limit on justices and/or making it a direct election doesn't enhance democracy or our rights. If these restrictions were in the mid to late 20th century, i doubt we would have these landmark rights that were decided by the Warren, Burger and Rhenquist Courts. Let's say there was an arbitrary 15 year term limit put in. That would of given the Nixon administration, in addition to the 4 justices he had already appointed, would of also replaced the court's fiercestprotector of individual rights, William Brennan. Marshall would of been replaced in the middle of Reagan's first term and the appointments of Scalia and attempts to appoint Bork don't exactly enhance people's rights when they're on the bench.

I think everyone in public office (and that goes for Congress as well) should be limited to a 2 term limit and get put up for vote after 4 years just like the president.

I think everyone in public office (and that goes for Congress as well) should be limited to a 2 term limit and get put up for vote after 4 years just like the president.

ShadowMoses900

I think a 2-term limit would do wonders for Congress.

I think everyone in public office (and that goes for Congress as well) should be limited to a 2 term limit and get put up for vote after 4 years just like the president.

ShadowMoses900

Well seeing as all article III judges (Supreme Court, Circuit Judges, District Judges) are all appointed for life because that's how the constitution is interpreted, its not going to change unless Congress amends it.

Truth is I like that they are for life as it helps the court not be subject to democratic whims and brings a certain stability to constitutional interpretation.

If justices were elected every XX amount of years interpretation would change for re-election and you would have justices campaigning and backed by corporations and what not. Since right now they sit outside of the direct democratic process, it allows the court to interpret the constitution with minimal influence so the can balance the powers and rights of States, Federal Government, and Individuals more easily.

YES. The re-election process is part of the reason why American Politics is so corrupted.

Life-time for sure too much corruption if they have to be voted into their position.

Could you imagine if supreme court justices was subject to the influence of Citibank, Koch Brothers, The church, etc? They would be bought just like how our congress is bought if they didn't have lifetime appointments.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I think everyone in public office (and that goes for Congress as well) should be limited to a 2 term limit and get put up for vote after 4 years just like the president.

JML897

I think a 2-term limit would do wonders for Congress.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I think everyone in public office (and that goes for Congress as well) should be limited to a 2 term limit and get put up for vote after 4 years just like the president.

nintendofreak_2

I think a 2-term limit would do wonders for Congress.

If there's anything that congress has taught me, it's that experience doesn't matter.DroidPhysX

Absolutely.

well....i can see why they are appointed for life, of the choices ive seen them make they have made the choices which i feel are what are best for america, you cant have the president choose the supreme court members, you cant have the publice choose the members either...so who exactly is left?

well....i can see why they are appointed for life, of the choices ive seen them make they have made the choices which i feel are what are best for america, you cant have the president choose the supreme court members, you cant have the publice choose the members either...so who exactly is left?

linkin_guy109

The president does apoint supreme court justices.

Absolutely not. They're appointed many times based on political agendas of the appointers. They should be appointed and approved by Congress, but also only serve for a max of ten years. If they've done well, then they can be reappointed. Being in office for life smells of infinite power within reason. Also, at a certain age, they should be forced to retire.

Absolutely not. They're appointed many times based on political agendas of the appointers. They should be appointed and approved by Congress, but also only serve for a max of ten years. If they've done well, then they can be reappointed. Being in office for life smells of infinite power within reason. Also, at a certain age, they should be forced to retire.

Sunfyre7896