Should SCOTUS justices be elected?

[TDAS04]

What do you think?

[TDAS04]

Option 2.

I agree.

[TDAS04]

If I could rewrite the US Constitution, the justices would be appointed and confirmed by the same process as IRL, but would have to retire after 20 years.  They could use any or all of those years, and they would face no retention votes or reconfirmation votes.  After they're done, they would not be allowed to come back.

[TDAS04]

The status quo has worked just fine.

The main problem I have with lifetime appointments is that if SCOTUS makes a bad decision, we could be stuck with that decision for a very long time.

Still, SCOTUS should be able to make unpopular decisions, so the status quo is better than elections before the general public.

[TDAS04]

Electing judges is an awful idea and mandatory retirement ages strike me as discriminatory, so I'm really not sure that there's any feasible option better than the current system.

I agree that there should be no mandatory retirement age.  People in their 70s can still be good judges.

That's why I think that SCOTUS justices should just be required to retire after 20 years, regardless of age.

[TDAS04]

Elected judges are the worst idea in the history of ever. Option 2.

Yes.  At least my poll is more than just that question, since it's also about lifetime appointments.

[TDAS04]

Both electing judges and judicial term limits are bad ideas.

Why should they be appointed for life?

[TDAS04]

There is no question that the courts play a vital role in cooling passions of a public that is usually not informed enough.  Judges should never be elected, and they should be able to interpret the Constitution and the law without political pressure.  The "will of the people" is often unconstitutional, and the judiciary must be there to contain it.

However, there is also a problem with appointing 40-somethings to the bench with the right to stay there for life, regardless of how long they live (50 more years, maybe?).  While the Judicial branch should be more elite than the other two (or at least the most insulated from politics), there should be power rotation with all of the branches.  Unlimited terms for members of Congress is much less of a problem, and I support them.  But there are so many members of Congress, regularly elected by popular vote, and they still can't get much done as a group.  SCOTUS can block anything with a simple majority.

Lifetime judicial appointments result in too much difficulty in achieving a court that undos its bad prior decisions, and there are a few awful decisions of the recent court that we're going to be stuck with for a while.  Too much authority for too long of time for anyone is corrupting, and limiting time on the court to a fixed 20 years would be the best solution.

[TDAS04]

There is nothing broken about the Supreme Court except for the fact it sometimes reaches decisions that you disagree with, sometimes vehemently.  That is not an excuse to change the existing system.  

You're missing the point.  I don't know where you came up this the silly idea that anyone who disagrees with the precise structure of the system just doesn't like the court's decisions.  The court makes some good decisions, some bad decision.  Even if a decision is good, that doesn't mean that lifetime appointment itself is good.

Whether decisions are good or bad has nothing to do with why some disagree with the concept of lifetime appointments.

[TDAS04]

Lifetime judicial appointments result in too much difficulty in achieving a court that undos its bad prior decisions, and there are a few awful decisions of the recent court that we're going to be stuck with for a while.  Too much authority for too long of time for anyone is corrupting, and limiting time on the court to a fixed 20 years would be the best solution.

There's nothing inherently positive in reversing prior decisions. If anything, I would think that more frequent SCOTUS rotation would have a negative effect by politicizing the court further. Besides, you have no guarantee that decisions that reversed thanks to newly appointed Justices would be ones you view negatively. They could just as easily reverse decisions you view positively.

Yes, of course they could reverse decisions that I like.  This isn't about the court making decisions that I like; it's just a disagreement of what the best system is.

Although you have a point that frequent rotation invites may more politicization.  However, 20 years on the bench is not that short of time, and would keep much stability.  With lifetime appointments, a series of justice deaths under a single administration could result in young appointments by a single president with a strong ideology, and they may make bad decisions; those bad decisions may even reverse prior good decisions, or a precedent that the court had traditionally subscribed to.  The court could be radical, and if the ideological justices are young, they will be there for a while.

Again, it doesn't have to be about decisions that I don't like, and suggesting that it is misrepresents the whole point.  The court could make decisions that you think are horrible, and those decisions may be there for a long time.  But if you honestly feel that the current system is best, then that's fine.  I happen to believe that that system could be improved, regardless of ideology regarding court decisions.