Should there be term limits for Supreme Court justices? by Carroll, Krystle

2024-12-13 18:45:32 UTC

The judges are more likely be biased towards, their beliefs anyway, so the citizens should be able to vote in who they want to better represent and reflect what the public needs - Kaosen Takane

2024-12-13 18:46:10 UTC

I agree with the 18-year term limits that enable a President to either have 2 or 4 appointments. Today political bias/pressures have obviously impacted both appointments and the actions/elections of the President, making the Supreme Court no longer "neutral". If there were term limits it would not only ensure a good rotation of newer ideas, but it would ensure the Presidents have equal power throughout many years. Term limits protect the long-term upholding of the Constitution against bias of the President, judges, and the American public.

#checksandbalances

2024-12-13 18:47:25 UTC

I am pro-term limits because lifetime tenure often insinuates a lot of free will which can lead to more corruption and abuse of power. Despite the fact that lifetime tenure was given for Supreme Court Justices to vote on decisions based on the Constitution and the law- most of the time, it is extremely evident that judges vote based on political party even though it doesn't matter since the people don't directly vote or nominate them. It also gives the president even more influence in the Courts.

2024-12-13 18:48:48 UTC

term limits would prevent judges from continuing even if they're too old and their work efficiency is declining. Judges who will be physically/mentally able to work for their entire limit would be more effective.

2024-12-13 18:48:52 UTC

The founders of our country deliberately made it so that those who interpret the supreme rule of law would stay there for life so that they are not under the influence of societal and political upheavals. While it is unfortunate that we have a Supreme Court that is majority on one political party, that's how the law and the country works. Presidents elected by THE PEOPLE and the electoral college choose the justices, and we are acting as if we the people, along with Congress, don't have access to check on such appointments and have their careers over if they are truly worsening our country.

2024-12-13 18:48:52 UTC

There should be a term limit of 15-20 years for a justice. 15-20 years is a good range as it still allows for a limit, but it isn't as short of a term for the house or presidency as you wouldn't want the justices' making decisions on what will get them votes 4 years later.

2024-12-13 18:49:31 UTC

Term limits should be implemented to ensure the adherence of the Constitution and the law, as perspectives change as time goes on and warrants the necessity of various outlooks based on the current society's ideology. Lifetime terms prevents the views of the new traditions and customs to be implemented in law and fosters old ideology to be put into law.

2024-12-13 18:49:47 UTC

I feel that there should be term limits for Supreme Court Justices as there are ages when people become too mentally/physically dependent which inhibits them from doing their jobs effectively. I also believe that significant social and cultural shifts should be reflected within the supreme court as well, which cannot be achieved when justices serve lifetime appointments.

2024-12-13 18:50:07 UTC

Term limits for Supreme Court Justices should be instated to try to avoid a corrupt system that allows for conservatism and bias in an always-changing America. Term limits should be up to 18-36 years. Justices should still be nominated by a president and not elected based on the people's will.

2024-12-13 18:50:13 UTC

Term limits would ensure that the judicial branch remains a dynamic, reflective body capable of adapting to the contemporary values and needs of the American people. The fact that the president's appoint the justices, is only a testament to the politicized nature of the system as a whole. There is one argument made by the second guy that I liked, and it said that term limits wouldn't solve the issue of politicized nominations, and because of this, it's VITAL that we impose the concept that the first guy had with the ability for each president to be able to appoint a certain amount of justices - and notice how the amount of appointments they'd have would still not give them a majority... important!!! Honestly, i think that the supreme court could stay without term limits but only if there is a bipartisan split between them, make it 8 justices, 4 and 4 and find some way to FORCE cross-party agreements.

2024-12-13 18:50:18 UTC

There should be term limits because having an old and mentally unwell judge making important decisions for the nation is too risky and does not align with Freedom in America. Also, if a judge were to be given 18+ years term limit instead of life then that would be enough time to develop their independent nature and make better decisions. Presidents will also not appoint young and inexperienced judges and is able to pick better judges.

2024-12-13 18:50:55 UTC

I agree that Supreme Court Justices should have a long-term limit. Reasons vary from the fact that due to change in time period there could be a shift in party ideals and principles which influences how decisions should be made. In addition, at a certain age they no longer have the ability to make rational decisions meaning certain agreements may be made from their own conscience and not according to the constitution. Furthermore, evidence has shown that while the Supreme Court isn't supposed to have preferences, they always prioritize a certain group or interest.

2024-12-13 18:51:42 UTC

Though in the past, term limits have not been utilized within our government, it is imperative to start establishing term limits in the future. Not only do some presidents have the ability to appoint whatever candidate they want, which gives the Executive Branch too much power as it is, but the ability of the justices to work effectively. could possibly be impaired due to age. Additionally, these justices are selected specifically for the purpose of judging the constitutionality of certain laws, which cannot be done effectively if a judge is impaired in any way.

2024-12-13 18:51:56 UTC

Term limits don't guarantee depoliticization of the supreme court. If bias is the problem, they're going to be bias anyway. With term limits, judges are likely to show MORE bias since they know their term is ending in a year or two. They won't make decisions according to what the constitution says, they'll make decisions with a "I'm leaving anyway" mentality, and they won't worry about the fact that their decisions will be permanent because of feelings of bitterness. Judges are on the supreme court for a reason -- they are trusted and regardless of their votes on cases or laws, someone is always going to be upset about the outcome.

2024-12-13 18:52:06 UTC

I agreee that there should be term limits for Supreme Court justices, because the justices who have been in the Supreme Court for more than 20 years have gradually became incapable of doing their job physically and mentally. In addition, Presidents have too much influence in who they choose to appoint as a Supreme Court justice, which can lead to more corruption and the potential of damaging individual rights. Term limits should instead be up to 18 years, which can reduce corruption and it should be up to the people on who to appoint rather than relying on just the President

2024-12-13 18:52:22 UTC

Term limits would help to keep justices more unbiased in their choices, as political influences are a huge contributor to who the presidents pick if they're given the chance. Politics being involved in who is chosen to be a justice is inevitable... however there have been one-term presidents who have elected 6+ judges, while others have elected 0. By enacting term limits and staggering them, we'd be able to guarantee that each president is allowed to appoint someone. 18-20 years is enough for the judges to not be affected by the fear of losing their reelection, in turn helping to depoliticize the court.

2024-12-13 18:52:52 UTC

I am against term limits because lifetime appointments allow the selection of judges to be non-politicized.

lorenzomaione8 — 2024-12-13 18:55:31 UTC

Term limits of about 20 years should be put in place in order to maintain high quality judges. When judges get older their ability to preside over cases may decrease and having long term limits would still prevent short-term political trends from influencing court decisions.

2024-12-13 18:58:06 UTC

While Hamilton does make a strong argument on a lifetime tenure would prevent judges to be swayed by the public opinion, this does not ensure they truly make decision based on the law. It would more likely allow them to make decisions on their own beliefs throughout their life tenure.

2024-12-13 19:01:12 UTC

I agree with the term limits because it allows for the idea of bias to subside due to the fact that there have been many political pressures from the public that can damage the view of one's belief. And the mental/physical capacity of a person can hinder the performance and decision making of a judge, the same people who decide whether or not something is unconstitutional. In addition, there should be an 18-year limit for the Supreme Court justices