Why did SCOTUS Justices receive lifetime appointments way back. It's never made sense to

[RKP5637]

me. Times change. I'm not so sure being rooted in the past is always such a great idea. Also, some Justices bring a lot of baggage with them to the position. It seems to me this is the only situation wherein an appointment is for life? I thought it strange as a little kid and I still do now. What were the founders thinking?

Justices can and do, of course, shape the entire nature of a nation and it lasts for eons. Not all decisions are good IMO. And politics need to be removed from SCOTUS ... as it seems now, that is sometimes to me at least the first consideration in their rulings. It is so wrong.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. A judge beholden to repeated appointments to keep his job, or elected

is beholden to politics and the powers that gets said judge elected.

A lifetime appointment, in theory, took the judge out of politics making him beholden only to his intellect and conscience.

[RKP5637]

12. Yes, I can see now that it eliminates political pressure. n/t

[Cha]

18. Yeah, "in theory" but the republicons have

desecrated that theory.

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. The people who wrote the document believed the theory

Republicans believe in power.

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. It's in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Tenure

[RKP5637]

14. Thanks for the link! n/t

[JI7]

3. you can't remove politics from SCOTUS, and if you put term limits in place, things will be even

more political .

[RKP5637]

13. I see that now, it would be a political nightmare. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. The reason was to have judges who wouldn't be influenced

by short-term political issues. In theory at least, life tenure shields judges from the political pressure that comes with having to respond to the immediate interests of voters. The justices do not have to raise money for election campaigns or worry about losing elections because they issued an unpopular but legally correct decision. In practice, of course, court appointments are intensely political.

[RKP5637]

8. Yep, quite true, on reflection it would be even worse. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

5. Four reasons:

Earl Warren, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter.

All appointed by Republican presidents.

When job retention is dependent on political whims, political whims tend to influence judicial decisions. Lifetime mean that the justices (and other federal judges) are free to tend to the law - rather than to who makes the next decision about whether they will continue to have a job.

[RKP5637]

10. Thanks! I can see where it would be a real political mess. n/t

[jaysunb]

6. People didn't live near as long back then

and younger people were surely not being appointed.

[RKP5637]

15. That, is an interesting point! n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. But if you look at the history of the Supreme Court,

it appears that quite a number of those early Justices lived well into their 70s and 80s. It's not quite accurate to say people didn't live as long in those days - average life expectancies were lower because so many children got sick and died from diseases that are completely curable now. But people who made it through childhood had a reasonable chance to live to be old, and a lot of these guys did.

[jaysunb]

30. All true, but most, prior to the mid 20th

century, were well along in age when nominated.

The average age of the Court as a whole fluctuates over time with the departure of older justices and the appointment of younger people to fill their seats. As of April 2009, the average age of the justices was 69 years. Just prior to the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist in September 2005, the average age was 71. After Sonia Sotomayor was appointed in August 2009, the average age at which current justices were appointed was about 53 years old.

The longest period of time in which one group of justices has served together occurred from August 3, 1994, when Stephen Breyer was appointed to replace the retired Harry Blackmun, to September 3, 2005, the death of Rehnquist, totaling 11 years and 31 days. From 1789 until 1970, justices served an average of 14.9 years. Those who have stepped down since 1970 have served an average of 25.6 years. The retirement age had jumped from an average of 68 pre-1970 to 79 for justices retiring post-1970. Between 1789 and 1970 there was a vacancy on the Court once every 1.91 years. In the next 34 years since the two appointments in 1971, there was a vacancy on average only once every 3.75 years. The typical one-term president has had one appointment opportunity instead of two.[91]

Commentators have noted that advances in medical knowledge "have enormously increased the life expectancy of a mature person of an age likely to be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court".[92] Combined with the reduction in responsibilities carried out by modern justices as compared to the early justices, this results in much longer potential terms of service.[92] This has led to proposals such as imposing a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices[93] and predetermined term limits.[94]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Age

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. So the real problem isn't just that they live to be old,

but that now they are younger when appointed and therefore are on the court for decades. There is some merit to a mandatory retirement age so their departure would at least be predictable.

[jaysunb]

32. It's obvious that it's hard to straddle so many generations

and generational politics and culture. If one were true to themselves they'd limit their "service" to the country.

[RKP5637]

36. This is sort of what bothers me. I can see the reason for continuity, but it seems some of

them today are stuck in the past, particularly on social issues. It's a hard call ... for some things one would want them rooted in the past to provide stability and continuity, but then on other things, I think the changing social culture for equality, one would like them a bit more hip, so to say. ... their ruling on HL, for example, to me is bizarre.

[davidpdx]

39. Younger appointees, longer life span, and judges choosing to stay on the bench until their death

(in most cases). The three together at the right time with Reagan in office for 8 years and Bush for 4 the two were able to put up 5 justices to the court. Carter-0, Reagan/Bush-5, Clinton-2, Bush Jr.-2, Obama-2

[jeff47]

7. The theory is you don't want a judge to be worried about re-election.

You want judges to decide based on the law and the Constitution, not on what will get them the most votes in November. So, "for life" so they never have to worry about doing something popular to keep their job.

Also, you have to remember that "for life" used to be significantly shorter. First, people didn't live as long. Second, SCOTUS justices used to have a lot of experience before they got the nomination, making them older.

Republicans in the 1980s figured out that if they could get younger ideologues stuffed onto the court, it would be beneficial for them. So they started nominating younger people in order to have them remain on the court for longer.

If you don't like politics in SCOTUS decisions, having the justices worry about getting re-elected or re-nominated is probably not a good idea.

[RKP5637]

17. Yes, that is interesting point, ""that "for life" used to be significantly shorter."" I recall

that now being a concern in the 1980s about republican appointments. Although my gut feel is term limits, I can see now where that could be a political nightmare.

[jeff47]

20. I can imagine some that would be less nightmare-ish.

Say, a fixed 15 year term, after which they retire with full salary.
Or have the SCOTUS seats rotate through the appellate judges - when their SCOTUS term is over, they go back to being an appellate judge.

However, those start getting into a different problem - constant change in laws. Yes, it sucks that corporations are people. But it would suck even more if they were people....then not people.....then people....then not people, and so on.

[RKP5637]

25. Yep, kinda like watching a never ending tennis match back and forth! n/t

[Cha]

9. It f*C*ing makes No Sense. WTH! Who gets that except freaking Kings and Queens?!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. See previous posts. It makes all kinds of sense.

Or, it would if the GOPers didn't keep appointing lunatics.

[RKP5637]

19. This discussion shed a different light on all of this for me. I can see now where term limits might

well present an even great political mess around appointments.

[valerief]

16. Justices could be appointed, serve a limited term, and not be eligible for another term.

That way, no worry about re-election.

As it is, we already have political, activist justices anyway.

[RKP5637]

21. We do certainly have that. I wonder, maybe the founders did not think we would have such a divided

country as now. It seems when I was younger, differing parties after a presidential election would come together (usually) and try to do what was best for the country ... as best they could. Now, it seems an endless bitter fight which is so exceptionally stupid in the big picture.

[IronGate]

22. For that to happen with the SC justice's

you'd have to change the Constitution.

[valerief]

28. Yep. nt

[IronGate]

29. But to be clear,

you make an excellent point in that it should be one term and out, no worries about being re-elected.

[elias49]

24. Nice little "What's Up With the Supreme Court" overview.

Thanks to all contributors.

[RKP5637]

27. I found it really interesting, the various perspectives. I had always wondered about all of this,

but had never really asked anyone. DU is great!

[Warpy]

33. They wanted the Justices to be immune from party politics

because they couldn't be fired if the majority party changed. It worked quite nicely that way for 200+ years. Then the GOP sold themselves lock, stock, and barrel and started proposing young men in their 40s who were ideologues who cared little for constitutional law but had a dogmatic axe to grind. Men in their 40s could be counted upon to poison the court for at least 30 years.

And so it goes today.

[RKP5637]

37. To me, this is spot on! The GOP has polluted the justice system with politics. A number of the

Justices do not rule blindly, but rather with "a dogmatic axe to grind" which is so blatantly apparent anymore.

[RobertEarl]

34. The power lies with the People

And the people have pissed away the power.

What should happen is that the people surround the court (just kidding NSA) and demand that the members who are against the people retire.

But we won't. We will just keep pissing away our power. Like we let our votes be counted by private companies using secret software.

[Bucky]

35. In the Founding Era, they often used the term "good behavior"

The idea was that you elevate men of principle and respect, and pay them well, for their impartial service to the Republic. It was concocted at a time when they didn't really expect the Judiciary to take on such strongly political roles. But what's the main reason that judges have become politicized? For the same reason there's been a rise of the "Imperial Presidency"--because the first branch of government, the Legislative, has failed to govern.

Whenever you hear about "activist judges" you can usually trace the need for a judge to step into a political controversy because a legislature, state or federal, has allowed a problem to fester. Bench rulings on immigration, prisons, environmental issues, rights of criminals, workplace safety, and healthcare all override existing laws because lawmakers have not worked to fix these situations, have failed to promote the general welfare of the public. When lawmakers slack off, problems accrue. Bitching about someone else coming along and sweeping up the mess is not terribly mature.

[RKP5637]

38. This, to me, is a very astute analysis!