Do you think it's sensible to have Supreme Court justices who serve for a lifetime?

Question

Yea, I'm assuming they don't do anything to get impeached. Does it serve us really to have Justices who will vote based on their individual biases and we are stuck with them for decades upon decades upon decades?

Answer 1

its not lifetime, i have to correct you, its a term of good behavior. they can have good behavior all their lives but some dont, and they can be removed. so i guess.

Answer 2

Although I understand your point, I don't think that limiting their time in office will solve the problem. With a limited amount of time in office, they can still render biased decisions during that limited amount of time. Limiting their time doesn't tell them that they are being unacceptably biased.

Impeachment is the way that ought to work to get rid of biased Justices.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. It is an entirely political position. They should be limited to terms just like everyone else. 25 years of some of these ' justices ' is too much for the American people.

http://www.myspace.com/midwestunited

Answer 4

Yes.  But they can be impeached you know...

If they had shorter terms they would be subject to external forces and would not be able to vote their mind.

Answer 5

On the premise that those who were elevated to the position were supposed to be dispassionate, apolitical, and without a particular agenda — YES, it made perfect sense.

However, it didn't take long for politicians to elevate passionate political people with a strong desire to promote their personal views and party platforms.

The problem is determining what is "good behavior." At a minimum, it probably means "not criminal."

A better way to put it might have been "good service." Then a judge whose decisions are constantly overturned would be a good candidate for impeachment. A justice whose constitutional holdings are based on extraconstitutional considerations would be a good candidate, too.