Supreme Court Justices Should Be Subject To Term Limits Essay

Supreme Court Justices should be subject to term limits. Both the House and Senate limit their terms, which leaves to questions, why not the Supreme Court? There are many arguments that Justices should not be subject to term limits, because of how well they know what they are doing. They have been in the position for a while and will continue to be. These political figures are the protectors of the Constitution and understand it better than anyone. The opposite view says that having term limits could bring in new faces with fresh ideas and mix up the political views points. Allowing Justices to serve for life allows for them to become “polarized” on certain issues and laws. Most people stick to what they believe in and do not change. With the changing world in need of certain changes, this may hurt the chance of changes being made. If the Justices had terms, more point of views would be expressed. People may see changes happening in laws and court cases. As stated by Christopher Ingraham, “statistically speaking, people are in much sharper shape mentally in their 40s, 50s, and 60s than they are in their 70s, 80s, and 90s”. Having term limits would allow younger men and women to get …show more content…
As told by Democracy in America, “The goal of life tenure was to “shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day””. This argument is weak and has many opposing views. Having the limit be too small, for example, a two-year limit, may cause for nothing to get done in the Supreme Court. Many different views would be expressed through the two years, but this could lead to cases not being picked up. At the other end of the spectrum, having a limit too long can cause for the views to be stagnant. Citizens would be able to see how Justices vote and therefore predict how they would vote on other cases. A reasonable term limit could be anywhere from six to ten