Limit Over Life
Throughout the years, there has been great controversy on whether or not Supreme Court
justices should serve a fixed term rather than a lifetime appointment. I agree with the argument
for a term limit for several reasons, some of which including decrepitude and randomness. There
are a large amount of views and opinions on this topic, however, stronger evidence shows the
reasons why justices should in fact serve a fixed term rather than for life.
One reason that many believe there should be a term limit for the justices is how, with a
life tenure, unpredictable deaths are common, and a fixed term could therefore decrease the
likelihood of an unexpected departure that could possibly induce disorder. This also affects the
randomness at which justices are chosen, and which presidents choose them. According to the
Washington Post, “term limits could make appointments less politically fraught.” Many people
agree, and the most common proposition is limiting justices to an 18 year term, where “each
president would effectively get to nominate two justices for every term in office,” which was
presented in a Harvard Law Review. Presidents would not only all get an opportunity to
nominate their own justices, but could also have a better chance of getting their nominations in,
which is a helpful addition.
According to Ben Feuer of Los Angeles Times, having term limits would eliminate the
“tyranny of the young.” This is because since presidents want their chosen judge to stay on the
court for an...