Should Supreme Court Justices be elected?

[Nym90]

I've often thought that Supreme Court Justices could be elected in a nationwide election, but to a 10 year term. Thus, 2 justices would be up for reelection every 2 years, except in years ending in 0, we would have the Chief Justice up for election.

Pros/Cons to this idea? People often talk about how much they hate unelected judges imposing their will on the people, perhaps should the Supreme Court and maybe also lower court judges be directly elected? It's something worth considering.

[Nym90]

Addendum: If a Supreme Court Justice resigns or dies, the President still gets to appoint a replacement subject to Senate approval as now, and that person serves until the next election for their seat.

[Nym90]

That's certainly a good point, Beet. I'm not even sure if I support it myself, I mostly wanted to throw it out there for debate more than anything. Certainly the fact that justices would have to run would make them more likely to do what the people want rather than what the "right" thing to do is, if those two conflict. But it seems that a lot of people think it's gone too far the other way, and that the courts trample over public opinion to impose their own values. Having a long term (10 years) would ensure that they are still mostly insulated from political pressure. They don't have to run very often. It's somewhat of a compromise, they still have longer terms than everyone else, but the people do also have a say as well.

[Nym90]

Notice my post said "could", not "should".