Skip to navigationSkip to content

Who Says Supreme Court Justices Get Lifetime Tenure?

By The New Republic

The text of the Constitution says no such thingRead full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • This can cut both ways. Long-serving justices can drift ideologically - John Paul Stevens and David Souter were Republican appointees who gradually became liberal justices. More recently, John Roberts has been shifting to the left since his appointment: now that he is the swing justice, where he eventually

    This can cut both ways. Long-serving justices can drift ideologically - John Paul Stevens and David Souter were Republican appointees who gradually became liberal justices. More recently, John Roberts has been shifting to the left since his appointment: now that he is the swing justice, where he eventually ends up will also determine the ideological tilt of the Supreme Court.

  • I actually like lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court. Firstly, it seems much more even keel than 2, 4 or 6 year stints meant to serve only the bidding of the associated political party in control. And secondly, if you receive a lifetime appointment you are free of all masters and partisan politics

    I actually like lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court. Firstly, it seems much more even keel than 2, 4 or 6 year stints meant to serve only the bidding of the associated political party in control. And secondly, if you receive a lifetime appointment you are free of all masters and partisan politics - no more having to tow the party line. You are free to grow, listen to others, learn, and make decisions out of careful deliberation and personal ethos versus out of party-ties and political pressures.

    I think we’ve seen the last few appointments turn out to be pretty moderate and sensible justices. It makes so much more sense for these individuals to have longer tenures to build judicial maturity and to weather the constant churn of the political storm avoiding decisions made in the “moment”. Their decisions persist through time, so should their tenure.

  • A conservative like myself can't help but find articles like this hilarious, and you see them pop up all over the place any time the Left loses a political battle.

    Democrats carelessly toss around the notion that health care is a "human right", even though the Constitution "says no such thing", and

    A conservative like myself can't help but find articles like this hilarious, and you see them pop up all over the place any time the Left loses a political battle.

    Democrats carelessly toss around the notion that health care is a "human right", even though the Constitution "says no such thing", and they even champion Roe vs. Wade, a Supreme Court decision that essentially circumvents and ignores a human right that the Constitution DOES recognize: the right to life.

    The hypocrisy is astounding. The ignorance is astounding. When Trump wins the election, it's suddenly time to do away with the "unfair" Electoral College. When the Senate is controlled by Republicans who don't bow to political pressure, it's suddenly time to "rethink" state representation. When a conservative justice is confirmed to The Supreme Court, it's suddenly time to question their lifetime appointment.

    It's just another tactic in the Leftist playbook. If you can't win the game fair and square, change the rules.

  • LOL it doesn’t matter what the text does or doesn’t say, because there is no reality anymore and nothing means anything, pass the salt.

  • Judges were supposed to serve lifetime positions to isolate them from politics, including that of those who appointed them. Unfortunately, the SC has had a hand in it's own politicization. Reading historical cases, it made a few outcome based decisions in the first 200 years. There were no divisions

    Judges were supposed to serve lifetime positions to isolate them from politics, including that of those who appointed them. Unfortunately, the SC has had a hand in it's own politicization. Reading historical cases, it made a few outcome based decisions in the first 200 years. There were no divisions like functionalists, originalists etc. The Constitution was a contract between the people, the states, and the federal government on how they were to be governed. In the last 100 years, however, it began rationalizing deviations from the Constitution even where the Constitution clearly disagrees (eg. delegation of legislative power). Thus, it became a policymaker. With policy making comes politics and the birth of liberal and conservative judges (an oxymoron if you think about it) That's like signing a contract and a judge interpreting it by their personal views.

  • Breaking News: Supreme Court Interprets Constitution to Not Imply Lifetime Tenure of SCOTUS Justices

    Also Breaking News: Congress Votes to Not Raise Their Own Pay

    Even More Breaking News: Happy Opposite Day, Everyone!

  • The rule of thumb for a lifetime seat as a justice is based in purpose and intent. The decisions being made by a justice cannot be made with fear of employment being taken into account. Then we will end up another branch of government vying for political votes and no checks and balances.

  • Interesting article, but I imagine that many calling for an end to lifetime appointments wouldn't like seeing the 2 oldest removed and replaced with younger jurists any time soon...

  • From an outsider’s perspective, it seems unlikely that lifetime appointments will or should be abolished. How would you define good behavior? Doesn’t that open up the floor to greater politicization stemming from the entity who is granted the authority to rescind appointments?

    The problem I think stems

    From an outsider’s perspective, it seems unlikely that lifetime appointments will or should be abolished. How would you define good behavior? Doesn’t that open up the floor to greater politicization stemming from the entity who is granted the authority to rescind appointments?

    The problem I think stems from the structural affiliation of those with influence in the US with the narrow partisan interests of one or the other party. Although it’s clear which party is more culpable of distorting institutions for their own narrow political ends. Hint: it’s the one with the turtle.

  • Nice historical review https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

    Many Justices retire... likely because they favor the politics of who’s in office at the time. Take Justice Ginsburg for example... likely would have retired if Hillary was elected. Just saying.

  • Very important stuff here. What I'd personally support if I were in charge is a 20-year term (no repeats) and confirmation by Congress, the president, and at least 6/8 of the remaining judges. The continuing politicization of the Supreme Court is extremely dangerous for the country, especially with a

    Very important stuff here. What I'd personally support if I were in charge is a 20-year term (no repeats) and confirmation by Congress, the president, and at least 6/8 of the remaining judges. The continuing politicization of the Supreme Court is extremely dangerous for the country, especially with a Congress so rife with corruption as ours today.

    (I'd also like to see a limit of 2 or 3 6-year terms for Senators and of 5 2-year terms for representatives. The chance of a lifetime seat is just too much incentive for greed and corruption.)

  • Lol don’t act like we didn’t elect any of those people that voted him in. WE DID THIS. The peeps not the reps.

  • Actually the Constitution does not specify “life time” for the term of a Justice. The specifics are kind of vague, that is, they serve as long as they serve with “good behavior”. Historically that has been interpreted as serving for life unless impeached & convicted by the Congress.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.