Supreme Court is a Lifetime Appointment... here's Why

[legalboxers]

US Supreme Court

Brown v. Board of Ed.

Miranda V. Arizona..

Engel v. Vitale

Giddeon v. Wainwright

Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

And the big ones...

U.S. v. Nixon (The President is not above the law)

Roe v. Wade (ABORTION RIGHTS)

Supreme Court Judges... Who DECIDE YOUR RIGHTS

http://mentalfloss.com/article/557577/why-do-supreme-court-justices-serve-lifetime-terms

But why do justices serve for life, anyway?

Well, for one thing, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t exactly specify that justices and the court are in a “’til death do us part” relationship. Article III says that judges (of both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts) “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” So technically, a judge could be removed if they no longer meet the “good behavior” part of the clause, but there are otherwise no limits on their term. In practice, this means they have their seat for life, unless they are impeached and removed by Congress. Only 15 federal judges in U.S. history have ever been impeached by Congress—all lower court judges—and only eight have been removed from office, though some have resigned before their inevitable removal.

There you have it folks. "Good Behavior"....

Hmm. What happens when "Bad Behavior" is there.. Brett Kavanaugh... Clarance Thomas..

Present Day Supreme Court Pick

Hmm.. Power shift struggle maybe?

But did they want to Make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN...

.. The article continues..

Justices can’t be fired if they make unpopular decisions, in theory allowing them to focus on the law rather than politics. Justices might be nominated because a president sees them as a political or ideological ally, but once they’re on the bench, they can’t be recalled, even if their ideology shifts. Some data, for instance, suggests that many justices actually drift leftward as they age, no doubt infuriating the conservative presidents that appointed them.

So in essence.. LIKE IT OR NOT... There is a political motive here...

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/brett-kavanaugh-trump-supreme-court-nominee/

Enforcing the Second Amendment. Kavanaugh argued (in dissent) that the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic weapons and its registration requirement for all guns violated the Second Amendment.

But I digress....

Presidents wouldn’t get to appoint justices purely based on whether someone died while they were in office, and the stakes for political parties nominating a justice would be slightly lower, possibly leading presidents and Congress to compromise more on appointments.

In essence, keeping the deck stacked against him, and future so-called elected Presidential persons..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board.[1] The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election.

You cry for term limits because the opposing party has been ELECTED PROPERLY (McCain, Schumer) but why isn't there TERM LIMITS FOR JUDGES

In any case, considering such a change would likely require a constitutional amendment, which means it’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. For the foreseeable future, being on the Supreme Court will continue to be a lifetime commitment.

MYTake Conclusion: Like all ELECTED OFFICIALS. Term limits must be SET FORTH. REGARDLESS OF PARTY LINE AND AFFILIATION.

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take

[lizziepooh03]

The point of the lifetime appointment is that these men/women that are appointed for life will not feel political pressure when making a decision. Once appointed, they are appointed for life and can make judgement based on their conscience and not political pressure. That is the theory.

And it is a good theory. However, the judicial branch of our government in recent history has often overstepped their judicial bounds and has tried to make law. And there have been no consequences for it so other branches have overstepped to the point law means nothing - just feeling and popular opinion. Sad.

Our government works because there is a balance between the judicial, the legislative and the executive. These lines have been blurred and I think the damage is irrevocable at this point. The lines will continue to blur to our determinant, I believe.

[ATuairiscean]

I was actually having the same thoughts myself but on a wider scale - Leaving individuals aside the big thing is to get (depending on your view) a conservative/Liberal supreme court - With this in mind is the fact Kavanaugh is 52 one of the main factor in Trump's/Republican minds so say he lives a whole and hearty life retiring at 85 (that is 33 years) - I think min age is 35 so I can see nominees getting younger and younger plus if your side isn't in control you will hang on until your side gets back in. Comic exaggeration but you may see a court one day of 4 judges in their late 30s and 5 in their late 90s.
How to get around it maybe the judiciary nominate and the politicians ratify only denying if they have valid grounds which the judiciary accept. No delaying crap either, a nominee must be voted on within a set period of clearing background check. Also I would have a 10 year term limit and min age of 55 and a max age of 65.

[JackJPershing]

Yes, but missing is the fact that Congress has tremendous power over the SCOTUS.

Examples:

1. As the Constitution does not set the number, Congress has the authority to alter the number of Justices, with the only limits being that there be always be a position for Chief Justice (the only judicial post specifically mentioned) and that any reduction in number not take effect till vacancies occur.

2. Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit or deny any or all appellate jurisdiction to the SCOTUS.

[samoht89]

We're the only one. We're the only developed nation with a supreme court THAT IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. All the other ones have limits

[goaded]

Not the UK. The "Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 originally provided for the appointment of two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who would continue to serve while holding judicial office, though in 1887, they were permitted to continue to sit in the House of Lords *for life*, with the style and dignity of baron"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary

It's not such a bad idea when it requires a large majority to include them, it sucks when it just needs a simple majority of people of bad faith.