should the supreme court serve for life?
406893
NO and like all elected and non-elected officials they should be subjected to immediate removal by the people in a majority  rule particularly when they are not serving the will of the public majority.
762823
I believe so.   But the U.S. Supreme Court believes otherwise.  So, who you gonna listen to?
70834
The Supreme Court is independent because a justice can serve for life.  President Bush indicated before he was elected that he would place "strict constructionists" on the court who would decide cases on the merits of the Law only after considering all the facts.\n\nThe fact remains that the country has many issues that could be clarified by new laws.  one good example is obortion, whether you favor or oppose it.  The truth is that the issues divides the country regardless of party affiliation and is highly polarizing.  Therefore, it is impossible for Congress to pass any law that resolves the issue and the Constitution can not be amended for the same reason.  There aren't enough votes on either sidebut more than enough votes to stop the "wrong" decision by the other side.  Because of a failure of the Congress to pass laws, some expect the Supreme Court to take up the slack and legislate from the bench.  That would be a violation of the separation of powers for the three branches of government.  Therefore, regardless of his/her own beliefs, Supreme Court justices must set aside any personal views (one way or the other) and determine based on the arguments they hear and the briefs they read and a study of past decisions, who should win any particular case.  During recent hearings for Supreme Court nonimees, I heard no Politician blame himeself for failing to pass clear laws on any important issue.  Many had to be left vague to even get through Congress.\n\nLet's hope the Supreme Court remains above politics, even if different views are strongly held.  If we don't have the rule of law we have nothing.
732351
The legislative branch also funds the military (that starts in the House).  The judicial branch (Supreme Court) would interpret specific military laws that are brought before them.  But since active duty military can't sue the government, I don't think that happens too much.
855559
That is an excellent question. I think that it DOES have merit, either as an individual or as a class action. Our elected officials did take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, and they are failing miserably!
554088
I believe that the concept still lives.  In practical governing, however, the concept died during the civil war and was buried by the Supreme Court during the twentieth century.
754766
It's the appeal process, which can drag on for decades.  As long as they haven't expended all their appeals, they can continue to do so for as long as they can.
752367
No, because the Supreme Court won't LET us manage our country. They decide when they'll let us have the laws we want to have. It's all up to them.
931248
no - that is two terms in a lifetime.  In California that goes for all state elected offices.  Once you are termed out of a given office, then you are termed for life. That is why people like Bill Lockler moved from Attorney General to the State Treasurer.
1012022
We clearly have the best form of government in the world today.\nHowever, we have allowed our government to become embedded with life-time politicians that are manipulated by too many outside companies or groups that want to promote their own agenda, whether it is good for the country or not.\n\nI believe we really need to limit the terms of all government officials. We only allow the President to serve 2 terms, yet we allow our Senators and Congressman to serve life terms. This doesn't make sense. Terms need to be uniform for all politicians in the federal government. Two four-year terms should be the maximum anyone can serve.
1127889
What you describe is sad, and the system we have devised.  The courts are the best that human beings have come up with so far in the history of the planet.  But they are far from perfect and mistakes happen all the time.  As you rightly point out, public "pretenders" are anything but helpful.\n\nWhat is important is to not quit, ever.  Even while imprisoned, a person can use his or her wits, and study the law and work actively on the appeal.  Deadlines are critical.\n\nBad things happen to good people.  And life is anything but fair.  Instead of focusing on what happened, sometimes all a person can do is look to the future and make the best of every day.
238656
Our Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President.  They go through confirmation hearings in Congress and are approved by a vote of the Senate.  They are appointed for life or until their voluntary retirement as that of Sandra Day O'Connor within the past couple of months.
1137442
I think it should be obvious to every citizen who votes regularly that the vast majority of congress, and also the executive branch never represent the voters who elect them (except during election campaigns) are beholden to the special interests that finance their elections and other perquisites. The reason I say it should be obvious, is the the millions of dollars a candidate spends to win elections to an office that pays anywhere from about $160,000 to $400,000 annually just doesn't wash. I don't think it is to serve the country. But, I have a solution, unlike our representatives who can only state what problems exist,and appoint committees to study them.\nAny elected representative (including the President) who accepts money or gifts, and any person proffering such graft, should subject to confinement in prison for a long period of time. Elections should be financed by the taxpayers. Equal free TV time should be furnished by all TV stations without cost to every bonafide candidate. After all, the air waves belong to the public and the FCC should see to it. One more thing. Every elected official should serve no more than six years in any position and then he is through with politics, PERIOD! He goes back to his regular job, lives the laws he passed and becomes a working citizen. No special health care programs, ABSOLUTELY no retirement pension. The might consider joining a lobbying firm, but they would also be outlawed in my version of Utopian Republic.
447945
Of course.  If people are old enough to vote and die for this country they should have all the priviledges of adults.
477764
According to the US Constitution there are no requirements to be a US Supreme Court Justice. Article 3 of the US Constitution states "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." States all vary with some requiring law school and a Bar Association while others require very little. \n\nIn Liberty,\nEric H. Smith\nwww.erichsmith.com
600447
Yes, for 2 reasons - they made their choice when they took a life & why should we as taxpayers pay to fed, clothe, educate & guard life sentence criminals.\nIn our state it is rarely given - must be cruel - like all murder is not cruel. Murderers forfeit their right to live.\nMy brother was murdered while buying a gallon of milk during robbery. They got the death penalty but it was overturned & they get out this year his 3 children are not even out of college yet. They grew up without him.
165805
Supreme Court justices are appointed to the high court for their personal views. Are they pro-life or not? Are they strict constructionalists? Where do they stand on the separation between church and state, between the federal gov't and the states.\n\nWhy do you think Supreme Court appointments were a major issue during the last presidential election?  Because a justice's personal views MATTER -- and this isn't something that became an issue in the last 8 years.  It's always been an issue since Marberry v. Madison.