Should Supreme Court Justices have LIFETIME Appointments??!!

If it is not broke why fix it?

it may take an AMENDMENT to the US - constitution although. I would support a retainment-vote, after 20 years.

Not just no but HELL NO. At the time the constitution was written, the life expectancy of the average male was 47 years, no one at that time, thought we would have judges sitting on the bench for 30 plus years.

Justices should have termed appointments. We need to keep the court fresh and their minds open to advancement. The constitution and our laws must be upheld but current times should be considered. I find the Supreme Court to be a little too dusty to make a lot of decision in this day and age. This is why we need termed limits.

Maybe lifetime needs to be redefined with a certain retirement age or something, but Supreme Court Justice is a postion where the experience counts.
I'll go with the opinion Seadog expressed on this page, "I am not going to second guess our founding fathers."

The lifetime appointent was created so there would be long-standing continuity in the court rather than a view of the constitution based on the whims of the time. And please just imagine the electioneering that would take place when a justice was up for nomination; at least now nobody has a clue when someone will retire so cannot campaign solely on packing the court- which would definitely happen under a rotating system.

Try to think beyond stage one, people. Gut-level thinking is what gets our country into most of the messes it's in, regardless of party.

Agree.

In the haze of politics, people forget what the SC does. They do not decide if a law is good or bad or liked or not liked. They decide on the constitutionality only - that is it.

All this crap about liking a law or not liking a law has nothing to do with the constitutionality - that is opinion by the people expressing themselves. Every decision is usually guaranteed to tick of some percentage of the population.

No representative lifetime position in a democratic society should ever exist or be permitted to, 1 single 7 year term should be the cap and limit with appointments through the Federal electoral college. With oversight appointed to POTUS and both houses to ascertain alignment and fulfillment in purpose of their elected appointments.

The merits of worth of such a position should weighed be and valued by the people at large they are to serve, not a handful of citizens whose fancy and favor could be influenced with personal gain.

They serve for life to be above the crap that goes on in Congress and the presidency.

In the haze of politics, people forget what the SC does. They do not decide if a law is good or bad or liked or not liked. They decide on the constitutionality only - that is it.

All this crap about liking a law or not liking a law has nothing to do with the constitutionality - that is opinion by the people expressing themselves. Every decision is usually guaranteed to tick of some percentage of the population.

Well lately they have been wading nose deep in "crap" so when this occurs, they need to be ousted, and I think that should be the choice and decision of "We, the people"Not some shiny penny paid group of mouthpieces in washington.

Corporations are not people...but then our representatives, (shiny penny paid mouthpieces) have yet to clarify that with a challenge or ratification to the 14th. So when a piece paper filed on public record has more "free speech" political power than a 50o million constitutionally recognized & identified human citizens, I think its time to throw these babies out with the dirty water.

Congress and the senate are self regulated and that to needs to be put back into the hands of those who elected the representatives for accountability and sanctioning, disbarment/impeachments. (States) Whether they like it or not.

Well, the SC does not write the laws but they review the cases brought to them via the judicial system. Then they decide on the constitutionality - that is their responsibility .
The House and Senate operate separately and may or may not write laws that are constitutional - they do not decide that issue nor does the Executive branch. Not now and not for the past 200 years. The interpretation of the Constitution is not a cheerleader contest nor should people try to turn it into one. This is what separates this country from all others - three separate branches of government and, fortunately, our Courts are not subject to the whims of the other two branches nor the whims of a fickle populace.

2 to 5 years

Hell No, but i do understand why the framers gave them life time appointments.It was to keep politics out of the highest court in the land, unfortunately that concept is lost now.

But the instant they show bias based upon any political alignment or religious alignment or inappropriate association with any kind of lobbists they become subject to immediate impeachment since they can no longer be considered untainted by outside influences.

that is an idea maybe with some merrit, but we could anticipate too many long drawn out legal battles that would be nearly impossible to prove ending up spending more time impeaching judges than upholding the Constitution in all other matters

Well Paul, It has been made very obvious that 3 of the four appointed by conservative Presidents have been bought and paid for based upon not only their decisions by their very obviously biased statements in their rulings.

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts are total failures as impartial justices and have carried out a totally biased agenda of supporting of ultra conservative positions. Most notable being Citizens United and day before yesterday's decision of AZ SB1070 which should have been declared uncontitutional in it's entirety.

Under my purposed amendment to the US Constitution those actions would automatically trigger manditory expulsion of the justices based upon their obvious failure to respect the US Constitutions demands for equality of all citizens.

What is obvious to you is not going to be obvious to everyone, some of it subject to opinion, opinion difficult if not impossible to prove in court.
I do actually agree with you having a way to get rid of some of these justices, how to do it and defining what could be used for mandatory expulsion will make such a proposal very difficult to implement. Just my thought, I'm no where close to any kind of Constitutional expert.

It could be done, but only if you restricted the justices to their staff and families.

Of course that wouldn't work but there needs to be a way to get away from the extreme partisanism of the high court as it is now.

And at the same time surprise, surprise, surprise here we have the Cheif Justice agree with the liberals that the Affordable Health Care Act is Constitutional.!!

But the main reason he did it is to give the Repubicans ammo against the President for "raising taxes" yet the rating given to the bill by the OBM is that over the first 10 years it will save more than $1.4 Trillion dollars overall.

Funny thing is that Reagan RAISED taxes a total of 16 times AND added more than 20 additional NEW taxes during his terms in office which makes him the REAL LEADER in raising taxes on the middle class and poor.

It is indeed a crazy world.

Maybe compulsory retirement at 75 or something could be beneficial. Judges would be counter-productive without experience and impartiality. It would become far to partisan, violate, corrupt and political if justices had to be subjected to term limits. For those "strict constitutionalists" out there, I advise you read Federalist paper #78 and you might change your opinion on eliminating life-time appointments. http://hnn.us/articles/12962....

The people should vote on who they believe is qualified to interpret the laws of Congress.

They should serve no more than eight years. Some live to old age. When they get so old their mind may not be so sharp and they possible will end up making bad or wrong decisions.

Once they have "tenure", so to speak, they feel free to do as they please and not be held accountable for it. Give them 8 years, tops. Four might be better.

Generally speaking, I would side with our Framers as they were very, very wise when they set up our republic. However, over the course of 50+ years of Progressive/liberal influences, our beloved republic doesn't resemble what it used to. Today's Supreme Court justices are merely political pawns. No longer are candidates screened for their temperament towards our Constitution, but rather do they have enough liberal speak to squeeze by the 60 vote threshold? Which of our founders would have ever thought a nominee could be held up for filibuster? Would our framers approve of the character assassination of people like Robert Bork by the likes of Ted "Sink or Swim" Kennedy? What would these same founders approve of using foreign law in American court rooms and on the Supreme Court?

Maybe I'm becoming too cynical, but trusting political hacks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elana Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor and Steven Breyer with making intelligent decisions based on the American Constitution is asking too much. With this in mind, I would like to see the term limit of 14 years imposed with one possible renewal. I would support lifetime appointments IF the Congress had enough integrity to impeach and remove justices who have over-stepped their constitutional bounds or violated their oath of office to defend the Constitution. I don't see that happening anytime soon to suit me.

I think I like your answer better.

why is his answer better, because he came down on liberals, and not conservatives? Who gave us citizens United?

I'm meant his answer was better than mine. Both of which are better than yours. I don't have time to play with trolls so that's my final answer.

the only troll surfing this site would be you.

and how long have you been smoking the funny stuff/

Typical liberal clap-trap. You have NOTHING of substance except for name-calling. If you had any idea of what you were ever talking about you certainly wouldn't identify yourself with being a liberal. Again, coming from a know-nothing fool like you, I got what what I expected.

no different then you, so whats the problem with you? The only fool here is you, i bet you are against government ran healthcare insurance but will gladly except medicare.

I have no choice in the matter. However, my approach to health care is MUCH different than yours: You would empower the federal government to manage your very soul, if possible. Uncle Sam is just about God to liberals like you. To me, I would like the government to get out of the way and open the door to competition across state lines, subject the industry to anti-trust laws, have tort reform, cut requirements for paperwork (about 1/3 the cost of health care), greater access to HSAs, have medical facilities advertise rates, permit associations such as chambers of commerce to offer group rates to small business, make premiums tax deductible, and anything else which would apply market forces to greatly reduce the cost of health care to average people.

In addition, I would take some Medicare money and subsidize premiums for the working poor Americans. That's right - you have to be American and working to receive this. This would actually add an incentive to be working, would deny service to illegals and provide mobility should people change jobs. It would also empower citizens - not government - to provide for themselves the kind of coverage they need.

In the end, there's no substitute for individual liberty and every time you give government control of any aspect of your life, you reduce your own liberty to decide for yourself matters which are important to you.

See there is where you are wrong, and i do not need to write a book to get my point across, i work two jobs both full time. I do not need to have anyone to take care of me, i pay my taxes and i happy to. I dont mind paying for you, now you and the selfish baby boomers , will now have to share what you have . Good bye ACA ruled legal, i will know longer have to pay for people who can afford healthcare but play the olds. Good buy

You miss the whole point - it isn't about paying for someone else. It's about being to afford coverage and making choices for your family. The government has help set the health care game to have price rise so much it is often too costly for average people. My point in writing my "book" is to show you and everyone else there are ways of drastically lowering costs and increasing participation by getting the very organization which caused the problem out of the way.

You MUST understand I trust YOU to make the best decisions for you and your family - NOT Uncle Sam. This is a basic tenet of freedom. Another point is you have to be very careful as far too many politicians sell control of your life's decisions under the guise of compassion. Don't fall for it! Keep in mind you are smart enough to live within your means, but the reprobates in Washington have racked up $16 trillion in debt. Do you honestly trust their decisions more than your own? I certainly hope you do not!

When the justices were given a life long appointment people did not live as long as they do today

Considering this current medicore Supreme Court we're saddled with, I would have to say an "absolute no".

Yes, they should, but I think we've seen in our lifetime that maybe a lifetime appointment should be 30-40 years, or maybe 25-30 and then you're outta there. We don't want them "beholden" to anyone or party by having to get themselves reelected every so often. But age gets to everyone. Lifetime needs a limit and then bye-bye.

This helps make them as independent as possible and many conservatives (and some liberals) have become very different once granted their independence from the need to pander to the current moment's political winds... This is, essentially, out 'House of Lords' to stop us from becoming a rabble democracy.

The trouble is, this particular court isn't all that independent. We see that especially in the justices appointed by the Republican presidents. Thomas' wife is a card carrying TP'r, Scalia is so right wing that if he were to bend over a little he would tip over and Roberts is about the least effective leader of that court than anyone in modern history.

You see nothing wrong with the uber-liberal judges who cite foreign law or make them up as the go along? Oh, PULLLEEEZE! There are some of us around who think the Constitution still means something, but somehow the liberals think they're immune from its restrictions.