Speak Outs
Speak Out
Should federal judges and Supreme Court justices have term limits?

November 5, 2015; updated September 15, 2017

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

The Constitution has endured for over 225 years. Besides changing how senators are elected, the structure of the government also has pretty much remained intact through the history of the country.

Occasionally, there is a call to change the Constitution’s lifetime appointments for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, and create term limits.

Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution says judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” meaning that federal judges have lifetime appointments as long as they do not commit serious crimes. The drafters of the Constitution thought this would protect judges, who decide on the constitutionality and application of laws, from political influence. They could make decisions that may be opposed by a majority of voters but necessary to protect the constitutional rights of a minority.

Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but once they are seated, they can stay until they choose to retire or step down, or they die or are impeached.

Presidential appointment of federal judges has led some to question whether they can actually be free of political influence. It is up to chance whether a president gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice. A one-term president could appoint two or three justices while a two-term president could appoint zero; it would be a matter of when a justice decides to step down.

Term limit supporters also argue that people didn’t live as long in the 18th century and that it was nearly unheard of for judges to serve longer than a decade. Now judges serve longer and later in life; some judges are sitting on the bench well into their 80s. Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, said, “There’s no way the founders presumed that the average life tenure would be 26 years. It’s not really the way the founders intended democracy to work.”

Supporters of lifetime appointments argue that the calls for judicial term limits have bubbled up because of the divisive nature of the cases the courts are taking up. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 rulings in high-profile cases are not helping to dissuade them from saying partisanship has infected the independent judiciary.

Term limits, supporters of lifetime appointments argue, would do little to dampen partisan interference, and could even increase the politicking during the appointment process.

Lifetime appointments are the only way to keep the judiciary independent, supporters argue, and term limits would hinder this. The Supreme Court’s controversial rulings are not a sign of political interference, but rather that the justices are being independent, which is what the Founding Fathers wanted, supporters say. “The whole point of having a Supreme Court is to enable it to exercise independent judgment, which typically means that it will help one’s own causes at certain times and will help the causes of one’s opponents at other times,” Duke law professor Neil Siegel said.

Judicial term limits would require an amendment to the Constitution.

What do you think?

Do you agree that federal judges should have lifetime appointments? Should there be term limits for federal judges and Supreme Court justices? Which side’s arguments support your position? Would term limits decrease or increase the independence of the judicial branch? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
9/19/2017
Washington/NJ
Maria
Rokosny/WarrenHills
I do not think there should be term limits for these judiciary positions. One of the purposes of the lifetime tenure was to protect the judges from having to make decisions based on their chances of reelection. The American system is is entrenched in party politics; I think the life-long terms of these judges do not remove them from their views, but certainly removes the judges from their party affiliation to an extent. Once they are appointed by the president, they have their job and can breathe easier, not worrying about aligning exactly with their party's message or views.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Ray
Warren Hills Regional High School
There should be term limits on Federal and Supreme Court Justices, however, it should be more of a vote than just the President appointing the Justice and having them confirmed or denied by the Senate. Having terms that can last decades is presumably not what the Founders had in mind when they first wrote up the Constitution, where the average lifespan was much shorter and allowed only a decade or so of service as a Justice in comparison to today. However, the appointment of Justices shouldn’t be left up to the President, as that can lead to further politicking within the government than is already going on. Instead, I’d suggest letting Federal and Supreme Court Justices propose a Justice and having Senate confirm or deny this based on the judge’s history and everything.

9/18/2017
Washington New Jersey
Samantha
Rokosny - Warren Hills Regional High School
The courts play an integral role in our nation, from defending our rights to solving disputes. But just as the courts protect, they also harm. Cases such as Plessy and Dred Scott are clear violations of human rights, and those were decided by the courts. I bring this up to point out how damaging the courts can be. Old values stay in place if no new ideas are brought in. There are times that the courts have gone against the wants of many, such as Brown, showing that it is undecided how courts will react. Term limits can protect against the sways of the majority, but also hold in place old values. I believe term limits should apply, but still have something like ten years, or fifteen. It is extremely important that the courts do remain unswayed by the whims of the majority, but then cases like Dred Scott remind us that change is often necessary. Both sides have validity, but in the past, the faults of lifetime courts are shown. Consistency and independency is important, which is why ten years is better than twenty-six. So, I believe we do need term-limits, at the expense of some independency of the judicial system.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Alyssa
Rokosny/Warren Hills
I think that there should be term limits so they are able to represent the population's views. Their health may also deteriorate with age which can effect their decision making abilities.

9/18/2017
Washington NJ
Brianna
Rokosny/Warren Hills
Federal judges should not have lifetime terms. If that is allowed, then judges could be out of touch and believe in outdated values. It also could affect things because if a different president nominates them and they last through another presidency, they could be influenced on their decisions based on their opinion of the president and their values. I think that it is also true that they do not live as long so people did not have to worry about judges staying in office for 50 years. It should be limited so it is fair to both the people and other candidates for the position.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Zach
Warren Hills Regional High School
I think that Justices should have term limits because as they serve with the other judges over the years, they develop relationships with them. This could lead them to be inclined to vote in favor of them and support their decisions, rather than make their own choices.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Cassie
Warren Hills High School
Personally, I do not believe that federal judges should have lifetime tenure. Politics and the state of American government is ever changing, and thus the persons in office should be changed in order to adapt to those changes.

9/18/2017
New Jersey
Michael
Mrs. Rokosny
I think that for the system we have, decided by Marbury v. Madison in 1803, lifetime terms for Supreme court justices makes sense. Marbury v. Madison established that nine judges have the ultimate call on whats constitutional and unconstitutional in the United States. Whether you agree with this decision or not doesn't really matter because its what we have. Keeping a comfortable environment for the justices where they don't have to deal with outside pressures or the process of reelection is very important. They are allowed to keep their views that got them onto the court in the first place.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Tamia
Mrs.Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional High School
I believe that federal judges should have lifetime appointments, because I personally think if they were strategically chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate. In addition, experience, I feel, is very important for a job and by leaving them up there for as long as they please insures this experience levels which makes them more credible, in my eyes.

9/18/2017
Washington, New Jersey
Kayla
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills High School
I don't think that there should be a term limit, but I think there should be an age limit. There shouldn't be a specific number of years like the president, but they should not be over the age of 75. Once you hit a certain age illness becomes more likely and their ideas become out dated. I don't think that there needs to be more "background checks" and things like that because Congress can deny the justices if they feel it's not right.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Ashley
Warren Hills Regional Highschool
I think that the judges should have lifetime terms because what they do, in my opinion, doesn't really affect everyday people. As far as senators and congress go, they do play some part in our everyday lives and it is important for them to have limits. If they do not do a good job, we can vote to put someone else in office. In my opinion, supreme court justices are no different then regular justices, they just get the more important cases for a lack of better words. I think there should be certain conditions such as if the justice developed Alzheimers. Then they probably shouldn't be working.

9/18/2017
Washington/ New Jersey
Racquel
Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional High School
The Supreme Court justices definitely should have term limits because having the same person, who of course would hold the same beliefs and ideals, would be toxic to our justice system by causing corruption. For example, Brown V. Board of Education, should the judges who voted in favor of segregation still hold their offices?

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Mary
Warren Hills
I think there should be term limits on federal judges and supreme court justices because their judgment could definitely alter and change as time goes on. I also think they should be elected not just appointed by the president.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Bethany
Rokosny - WHHS
Supreme Court Justices should have term limits. Justices are not immune to political bias, and having a life term will not change that. Since they're appointed by presidents, the president can choose someone who will support their ideas and that justice could do damage long after that president is gone. In the same vein, upwards of 25 years is way too long for an unelected official to serve -- the people didn't choose them, so they should not have as much power for so long a time frame.

9/18/2017
Washington/New Jersey
Sarah
Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional High School
I believe that there should be term limits put in place on the Supreme Court Justices, not because they are not fit to fill the positions, but because their views might be outdated. Because some of the justices have been in their positions for quite a while, their views may not follow modern opinion which can skew votes on certain cases.

9/18/2017
Washington, New Jersey
Joseph
Rokosny, Warren Hills High School
I do not think there should be term limits for federal judges because life time appointments help solve multiple issues. By appointing them for life it prevents the justices from making choices to gain support of the people to get reelected instead of following the law. It would also be impracticle to be constantly replacing and appointing since it is already such a long process to do. Finally, I do not think it is our right to dictate when someone is fit or unfit to carry out a job they have been doing successfully their life. And even if they do fail, and make choices that go against the law and constitution they could be impeached, so there are fail safes in place.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Kieran
Warren Hills High School
I agree with the claim that there needs to be consistency in the supreme court, but this can be achieved through term limits. When justices serve for more than 15 or 20 years they are speaking the voice of the past. We need justices that can speak for us today, and that would be through term limits. As a compromise the limit can be 10 years so they can be independent and so we can have variety in the years served among officials in our government. (president serves for 4-8 years, etc.)

9/18/2017
Washington/ NJ
Jessica
Mrs. Rokosny/ Warren Hills HS
I believe federal judges and supreme court justices should have term limits. As these officials age, their values and opinions are often outdated. They also might not be in good health; mentally or physically. This can definitely impair their decisions. These deficits are not fair to the people of whom these judges/justices are deciding for. It is clear that the founders did not intend for judges/justices to be serving for as long as they are now. People did not live as long back then. It is not democratic.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Logan
Warren Hills Regional High School
Federal judges and Supreme Court justices should not have term limits. The best way to keep a political candidate from worrying about public opinion is to keep the public independent from him or her. With Supreme Court lifetime terms, justices never have to worry about the public opinion surrounding their decisions and instead can focus on interpreting the law and the Constitution. Life time term limits also help to keep some semblance of balance and stability in a constantly changing political world. By having members of government that have permanent experience and tenure until a chosen time, the federal government benefits and the people are given stability in a world of changing thoughts. The Constitution does not change on a regular schedule; why should the people who interpret it?

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Nick
Warren Hills
I think they should have term limits because other people should have the chance to be in their position. It would allow more for possibly a better person to be in their spot. Over time they may become bias and not make the right decision.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Luiza
Rokosny/Warren Hills
I do not agree with federal justices having lifetime appointments. Our country is constantly changing and if we have 80 year olds with point of views from decades ago making decisions for us we will never grow. If we have terms for federal justices we will be able to accomplish those things. We would be able to grow faster and advance our justice system. The first side's argument supports my point of view, they agree with not having life terms for federal justices. To keep the judicial branch independent they can come up with a way to vote people in. It does not have to be public, maybe there could be a type of electoral college for it.

9/18/2017
Washington
Natalie
Rokosny/Warren Hills
Federal judges should have term limits because as we all know times change and sometimes people don't. Many times as people get older their judgement is altered with can have negative affects when having the very important responsibility a federal judge holds. Another reason judges should not serve for life is because they are appointed by the president. Once that president leaves, that judge appointed will remain whether new president may or may not agrees with them.

9/18/2017
Washington, New Jersey
Katie
Rokosny / Warren Hills High School
I believe that there should be term limits for a Supreme Court judge. For example the term could be for 15 years and then they could run again for a judge position. With that in mind there would be more room for newer, and diverse ideas within the court.

9/18/2017
Washington/New Jersey
Sara
Rokosny/Warren Hills
I think that federal judges and Supreme Court justices should have term limits. This would allow for new people to fill the job so they can have experience as a federal judge or Supreme Court justice. Giving others this experience is very rare so, it should be given set terms so the experience can be given to many. Another reason that there should be set terms is so that there are new ways of thinking. As you get older, you might not adapt to the new way of thinking where younger people can.

9/18/2017
Washinyon/NJ
Nick
Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional High School
I support lifetime tenure of supreme court judges. I believe that this term length allows judges to be as far removed from politics as they should be, and truly interpret the constitution to the best of their ability. Should judges face a shorter term length, their rulings would tend to be more partisan since they would have to worry about appointment or appointment which could sway their allegiance towards those who are responsible for placing them on the court.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Nick
Warren Hills Regional Highschool
Yes

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Joseph
Rokosny/Warren Hills
The Supreme Court is supposed to be reliable. Its decisions follow a clear precedent, and thus the stability of the state is ensured. Longer terms most likely increase that reliability, as judges become more familiar with the extensive precedent, sometimes even having laid down some of that precedent themselves. If the judge's mind is still fit and able, there seems little benefit to having an average 10 year term instead of a 26 year one. There is also the difficulty of establishing term limits to be considered. Amending the constitution in any way is near impossible with our current system, and possibly unnecessary term limits does not seem like it should be on the top of the list of things to change. For these reasons, I think members of the Supreme Court should keep their lifetime appointments.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Owen
Rokosny/Warren Hills
I disagree with Supreme Court justices having lifetime terms in office. Term limits are important to allow new judges with different perspectives, instead of having the same 9 people for many years. People say if a judge is bad or needs to be impeached that its an easy process yet it is the exact opposite and many times doesn't work.

9/18/2017
NJ
charlotte
rokosny
There should be term limits on the supreme court justices, as it is no longer the best option to keep older members on. The terms should be lengthy however there should be an established maximum age that they can serve. There aren't equal opportunities for different people to serve on the supreme court and biases are likely to develop as their years go on.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Kelsey
Warren Hills
Supreme Court justices should have term limits, because although they are supposed to be impartial, some justices do have views that lie along party lines. Term limits based on the time they are appointed would allow a rotation of mindsets and justices in the Supreme Court, while also preventing too much of a decrease in independence in the judicial branch. Not much would change besides how long the justices are able to serve.

9/18/2017
Washington/New Jersey
James
Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional High School
I believe that there should be a single, long term limit such as 8 or more years. This guarantees a set rotation of federal judges, as well as it guarantees the judge will outlast the current president. As well as limiting political influences on them, the long term limit would allow the ideas of a decade to continue and refresh.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Megan
Rokosny/Warren Hills
I think that there should be term limits because the age of the justices could have a direct impact on their decisions and thoughts. They grew up in a time very different from ours and I believe more modern opinions are needed. Health is also a risk factor. Their health could also be linked to their thought process and how they vote in general and also on specific matters. In a term limit isn't placed, an age limit should be put into effect. A sharp mind is key to making such important decisions.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Caleb
Rokosny
Being appointed to the supreme court is an honor that should be held for life, or however long the appointed judge sees necessary before stepping down and opening up the spot for a new judge to be appointed.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Jam
Rokosny/Warren Hills
There should be no term limits since the justices should not have to put aside cases to run for reelection. Also when people donate or give money to the justices, then they can be influenced and therefore not make independent decisions.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Victoria
Mrs. Rokosney, Warren Hills Regional High School
Just like the President has term limits, so should the Supreme Court. Society is developing and evolving faster than ever, and Justices who still are stuck in old beliefs and decisions can halt the beautiful progress of our country. As these Justices age, their fair judgments may also be impaired. It is for the best interest of our country that there is a constant movement between Supreme Court Justices, so that there is clear and fair judgement, as well as modern ideas instilled into every Justice.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Jam
Rokosny/Warren Hills
There should be no term limits since the justices should not have to put aside cases to run for reelection. Also when people donate or give money to the justices, then they can be influenced and therefore not make independent decisions.

9/18/2017
Washington/NJ
Ryan
Rokosny/Warren Hills High School
I think the Supreme Court Justices should have term limits because it would allow for new faces to appear on the court every so often. This would provide a fresh perspective for the court, as well as possibly incorporate more younger people with a better idea of how the world operates today, rather than allowing people to rule the courts for their lifetime. Older people will eventually grow stubborn and become less informed, leading to worse decisions.

9/18/2017
Washington, NJ
Sarah
Mrs. Rokosny
I think there should be term limits because as you age your ideas and theories may not change and be up to date with the way people think now. The older they get the more "old school" they will think compared to now-a-days. If people do not like one of them, they are going to have to wait until they retire instead of voting for someone knew.

4/18/2017
Bloomsburg/PA
Dylan
Bloomsburg area high school
I think they should have term limits because the way they think and how they are could alter with the age they are. If they are not in goof health and cant think as well as they used to they shouldn't be in office so there should be term limits.

4/18/2017
Bloomsburg/PA
Dylan
Bloomsburg area high school
I think they should have term limits because the way they think and how they are could alter with the age they are. If they are not in goof health and cant think as well as they used to they shouldn't be in office so there should be term limits.

4/18/2017
bloomsburg
braydon
mr davis
Yes so we get some different people to enjoy that position.

4/18/2017
PA
James
Bloomsburg High School
I think that their should be a term limit and that judges should be allowed 20 years at a time and cannot be over the age of 50 when they first start out o they end at age 70. They definitely should have term limits because their judgement probably is no the best when they are that old. Their should also be stricter background checks and to make it harder to be able to be a judge.

4/18/2017
Bloomsburg, PA
Jaclyn
Mr.Davis - Bloomsburg High School
I think there should be some year limit put on federal judges, and if they want to continue being a judge even after their time is up then they should hold a voting on whether other people want their judge duties extended or not. Have the people decide for each judge that wants to continue after their designated time is up.

4/18/2017
Bloomsburg, PA.
Corinne
Mr. Davis/ BHS
I think there should be a limit to their term. Waiting your whole life as a term is unfair, and we need new voices and opinions instead of people who has been there their whole lives.

4/18/2017
bloomsburg pa
allyssa
mr. davis
i don't think that federal judges and supreme court justices should have lifetime appointments. i think this because their judgement may falter with age. also i feel as though other people should have the chance to be one.

9/19/2016
Murrieta/CA
Bryson
mr.Jabro/Canyon Academy
No, I do not agree that federal judges should have lifetime appointments and this goes the same for supreme court justices, due to the likely hood that their judgement can falter with age.

4/19/2016
Murrieta, CA
Renzo
Jabro, Creekside
Independence of the judicial branch can strengthen its power on lawmaking and upholding laws. For a judicial member to hold a "lifetime" position, would be harmful to the strength of the branch. Many member have and would use their position to gain leverage and take "bribes". When this scenario happens, the entire judiciary system is left weakened. The idea to install term limits on supreme court justices and federal judges would provide a sense of stability, normality, and trust.

3/22/2016
Markham
Kayla
Mrs .Creasy
I think that the Supreme court should stay because they been there all there lives mostly and have more experience.They should be there forever. Unless they do something wrong or retired. They know whats going on around the world. The older they get the more they know . They got the job because they had their education and put there minds to it. They make the rules. They are very important

3/22/2016
Markham
Kayla.
Mrs.Creasy
I think that the Supreme court should stay because they been there all there lives mostly and have more experence

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Mahedi
Mr.Hana/Stroudsburg jhs
I think there should be a limit to their term. Its one of the high ranking jobs. The same concept of how we vote for the president should aply. That way there powers are limited and it also might limit conflict between branch's.

1/15/2016
Irving/Texas
Jubilee
Bradley/Nimitz
Supreme Court judges should have a lifetime appointments because with the other house change every-so-often there should be a one house that have a group of people that knows the laws and the reason behind it. If the courts have a term limits then the interpretation of each law will change whenever a new group of judges come into offices.

1/14/2016
Irving, TX
Rolando
Mrs Bradley Nimitz
Judges should be limited in terms serving in the courts. The reason being is that it gives younger people who want to be judges can gain an experience.Yet people tend to have some misdjudge and be bias. The system for appointing one is sufficient.

1/14/2016
Irving/TX
Nicole
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think there should be limits to the Supreme Court. I believe the term if it ain't broke don't fix it applies to this because nothing has happened to where the Supreme Court would need to be limited more. They have the lifetime appointments they have for the experience they gain to make their job better anyway, so at the moment there really is no reason to regulate it more. Not only that, but putting the limits and such would go against the independence of the Justice/Judicial system where we don't need any disturbance.

1/14/2016
Irving
Angelica
Bradley
Some consistency in the federal government is crucial to the function of the U.S government. The president's term is short enough and allows little room to actually make a difference, even if the same party is in control of congress. There are very few exceptions to that like FDR, but even his reign didn’t last very long. That’s aside the point. The point is, there is necessary consistency that doesn’t need unnecessary change. A term limit can even slow down the law making process by introducing a more frequent buffer time at the beginning of a term where new senators would be learning how to do their jobs.Even if fresh ideas would be more of a consistent flow, the senators' terms need to be alone. Besides, the House (the whole other half of congress) is voted on every census. If anything needs to be restricted its gerrymandering not the term of senators.

1/14/2016
Irving/TX
Luis M
Bradley/Nimitz
Federal judges should have term limits because one factor will be the age and the ability to work, plus it's time to give the future judges a shout at the Supreme court. I know it takes a lot of experience and hard work in order to become a federal judge or supreme court justice, but in reality not every person last that long in one area. I think that most people agree that a judge and justice should be limited to a few terms and run for reelection like presidents and congressmen, even though the Constitution, “Shall hold their office during good behavior” , I think that statement is long gone.

1/13/2016
Irving
Angelica
Bradley
Some consistency in the federal government is crucial to the function of the U.S government. The president's term is short enough and allows little room to actually make a difference, even if the same party is in control of congress. There are very few exceptions to that like FDR, but even his reign didn’t last very long. That’s aside the point. The point is, there is necessary consistency that doesn’t need unnecessary change. A term limit can even slow down the law making process by introducing a more frequent buffer time at the beginning of a term where new senators would be learning how to do their jobs.Even if fresh ideas would be more of a consistent flow, the senators' terms need to be alone. Besides, the House (the whole other half of congress) is voted on every census. If anything needs to be restricted its gerrymandering not the term of senators.

1/12/2016
Irving/TX
Lexia Martinez
Bradely/Nimitz
i believe that federal judges do not need to have term limits. The system hasn't failed us yet so why make changes when something is working perfectly good. As time goes on one gains experience in life in decisions they make so in this case allowing federal judges a lifetime terms is correct they get the experience and learn what choices to make in cases that are presented. Sure no case is ever the same but allowing people to practice for a while never harmed anyone

1/12/2016
Irving/TX
Desarae
Bradley/Nimitz
I truly believe that there should be lifetime appointments due to the fact that these people serving as federal judges are experienced in years and are accustomed to the job and what they may encounter along the way in serving. The second reason behind where I stand is simply because if there were to be term limits the judges would be making decisions more so based off of majority popularity rather than according to the constitution to protect minorities. Although, there is nothing wrong in appointing new judges , it just more so in the nation's benefit to allow those who are serving to have a lifetime chance rather than to be limited a certain number of terms.

1/12/2016
Irving/Texas
Ryan
Bradley/Nimitz
By allowing Federal judges to have lifetime Supreme Court appointments, we allow them to gain vital experience in the decision making process as well in reading the Constitution. While having term limits with new judges would allow younger judges with their ears closer to the pulse of younger generations, that trade off does not compare to the consistency and crucial experience found in having judges with lifetime appointments.

12/17/2015
Murrieta/California
Joshua Garcia
Mr. Jabro/Creekside High School
I think that federal judges and Supreme Court Justice, should not have lifetime appointments, they should have term limits because it gives others a chance to provide justice and add a change to the justice system, very much like a president. Term limits would decrease the independence of the judicial branch because future judges will look up to past judges in comparison and demand equal treatment in the rulings.

12/14/2015
Irving,Texas
Nicholas
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that federal judges shouldn't have term limits because that if the constitution doesn't proclaim that there are term limits, and it only allows them to step down only on few circumstances (if it ain't broke don't fix it). Even during FDR's presidency when he tried to amend the court packing bill which only limits justices by their age it was denied because of that it would give FDR the reason to appoint judges that he likes. Justices shouldn't be limited in their terms. If it is a tenure position it should stay a tenure position.

12/11/2015
Diamond Bar/California
Jon-CesarP.4
Wong/Lorbeer
I do not think federal judges or Supreme Court justices need to be restricted with term limits. I believe this because the United States has prospered for over 200 years now and having federal judges and Supreme Court justices in their positions for lifelong terms has caused no major problems with the way our government works. The way I see it is if it's not broke, don't fix it. One point that people in favor of term limits argue is that the founders of our country did not expect people to live as long as we do today. But, I see having older people as a federal judge or a Supreme Court justice as a good thing. They will bring wisdom to today's court cases. Sometimes that's what people in today's society need.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
EthanP1
Wong/Lorbeer
: I think it is unnecessary for Supreme Court Justices to have term limits because if one judge was judge for a long time, they would have the most experience in the Court then an inexperienced judge. Another reason for Supreme Court Justices not to have term limits is because it is tradition because even 200 years ago, Supreme Court Justices have had no term limit. Another reason would be that if the Justice was doing their job poorly, they could simply just impeach the judge and elect a new experienced one.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar
Franklin P1
Wong/Lorbeer
I don't think there should be term limits for federal and Supreme Court judges. If there were term limits and a old judge gets replaced by a new judge the new judge might not have as much experience as the old judge. In courts it is all about the judges experience as they will know what to do for certain cases and a new judge might need to have special training to catch up with the other judges. If the judges we have currently are doing their job properly why should we need to replace them and if we did the new judge they might not do as well of a job.

12/4/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
Zoom P4
Wong/Lorbeer
I don't think federal judges and Supreme Court justices need to have term limits. If they did, it would make new judges less experienced while keeping the justices would let them be experienced. Also if they are bad they can just impeach the judge. If the judges did have term limits then they would have campaigns then they would have to get supporters and if the judges have supporters then in court cases the judges could be bias.

12/3/2015
Irving/Texas
Erica
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not feel the Supreme Court justices and federal judges require term limits for our democratic society to prosper. We have succeeded in upholding Constitutionality of the law without them being restricted. The lifetime study of the law provides for their expertise, their wisdom is limitless. No matter the age, the judges and justices apply the laws best. To even apply a term limit would decrease the independence of the judicial branch as it interrupts the justices' and judges' independent judgement.

11/30/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
RaquelP1
Wong/Lorbeer
Federal judges and Supreme Court justices should have term limits. Presently, federal judges and Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments and their term ends only when they choose to step down, die, or are impeached. The drafters included this in the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a greater independence for the judicial branch and to ensure that the federal judges would remain unbiased and impartial. In the 18th century federal judges generally did not serve for over a decade due to a shorter life expectancy of that time. However, there are longer life expectancies today and federal judges are serving terms well into their old age. Due to serving for such a large amount of time, these judges or justices have a set mentality throughout their term and may not be open to change. With new federal judges appointed every so often, the court will have new mindsets and people with new ideas. To maintain the ability for federal judges and Supreme Court justices to use their experience to provide valid judgement, the terms should still be somewhat long. While term limits would decrease the independence of the judicial branch, the new federal judges would provide new ideas for the courtroom.

11/26/2015
Irving/Texas
Jose
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes I believe that federal judges should be able to serve a lifetime. Applying a term limit on Supreme justice and federal judges would make it so they wouldn't be dependent because the judges need to interpret the Constitution which takes the a long time. Term limits would decrease the independence of the Supreme Court because not only would the Justices be pressured to act in a certain amount of time, but they would depend on others to keep their ideas going so this means forming a party to keep ideas of an individual be interpreted by their successor. Not imposing a term limit on the judicial branch it will allow them to interpret the Constitution with liberty and not to worry that they got a time limit to exercise their judicial power.

11/19/2015
Irving/TX
Caroline
Bradley/Nimitz
Currently, there are no term limits for federal judges. This is due to the fact that, during the 18th century, when the foundation of this country was being laid, the life expectancy wasn’t as long then as it is today. The Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate for federal judges to serve long terms since the life expectancy then wasn’t that long. Today, the life expectancy in America is 78 years, which is double the life expectancy of 1787. When establishing the grounds of this nation, the Founding Fathers didn’t impose term limits because the life expectancy wasn’t high. But today, over 200 years later, the life expectancy is longer, therefore term limits for federal judges should exist. Article III, Section 1, of the constitution states that judges can hold offices as long as they have good behavior. It does not, however, state how long a judge can serve. Without limits, a judge can serve well into their eighties, a time in their life where they should be focused on themselves- not the government. Term limits allow for more judges (with alternative perspectives) to serve as federal judges. Federal judges should not have lifetime appointments. Although they weren’t implied in the constitution, the country today needs term limits for federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Although I strongly believe that term limits should be imposed on federal judges and federal, I also believe that term limits would hinder the independence of the judicial branch. The executive and legislative branches imposed term limits on congress members and the president, so proceeding to impose term limits would demonstrate the judicial branch’s lack of independence.

11/16/2015
Irving/Tx
Lija
Bradley/Nimitz
Supreme court justice and federal judges should have term limits because they will usually just have one mind set throughout their entire term. We need to be able to have new ideas running our Court systems. and old generation are in a different way than the new generation. So if we still have a old generation judge then that can cause us problems in our society because they will only take decision based on the life it was like earlier but now the system changes and we need a person like that. and I think that in order to keep the system fair, judges should have terms too, just as the president and United State Senators.

11/16/2015
Murrieta/CA
Joshua
Mr. Jabro/ Creekside high school
I agree with federal judges having lifetime appointments as long as they are doing a good job as judge and are approved by majority of citizens. Therefore, I believe there should be no term limits. Due what I have stated, I support lifetime appointments. I think term limits would decrease the independence of the judicial branch.

11/16/2015
Murrieta,CA
Davin
Jabro/Creekside High School
I believe that if a Supreme Court justice has had good behavior throughout his term, than he should be able to decide him/her self when they want to retire or step down.If the Justice gives a reason to be impeached, than the proper steps should be taken to make sure he/she isn't a honest or good-willed person.

11/16/2015
Irving/Texas
Julia A
Bradley/Nimitz
Supreme court justice and federal judges should have term limits because we need new ideas to run in our court system.More than that, we need new ideas for better decisions than just having one choice or one idea how to run the federal system.Having term limits keep the political leaning court fair. When time changes the the system should also be changed. So that there will be new ideas that is suitable for the present time.

11/15/2015
Irving/TX
Eric
Bradley/Nimitz
Federal judges are important in our government as they are the ones who decide on the jurisdiction on matters concerning the United States. By giving these judges lifetime appointments, they'll be able to use their experience to help provide valid judgement on hard cases. There shouldn't be any term limits because that would limit the amount of experience on both federal and supreme courts which would then hinder the quality of how things are being judged. Having new judges isn't a bad idea though because it helps broaden the age group and provide more insight on multiple matters concerning the younger generation. I agree with lifetime appointments because of how it keeps the judicial branch independent from the other 2. Term limits would just make the branch too similar to the other 2, and some judges who make the biggest impacts would be limited on the amount of things they can do.

11/14/2015
Irving/Texas
Leslie
Bradley/Nimitz
Federal judges, and Supreme Court justices should have lifetime appointments instead of a limited term. According to the founding fathers, in a lifetime appointment the judges are more concerned about making decisions according to the constitution to protect the minorities rather than what the majority think. In a limited term, is the opposite they’ll be more concerned about what the people think than the constitution and to be reelected. According to the article, term limits will decrease the independence of the judicial branch because the only way for the federal judges to be independent is through lifetime appointments.

11/13/2015
Murrieta, Ca
Jakob
Mr. Jabro - Creekside High School
The Supreme Court should have limits because the have to make decision on what is going on in politics today. But also if they know what they are doing the should be able to stay in the Supreme Court system.

11/11/2015
Irving/tx
Kayla
Etheridge/Nimitz
The supreme court SHOULD have term limits because you wouldn't want to keep someone who is stuck completely in the past because things are constantly changing. I believe it would be better to have different people be the judges because even though some might make better decisions than others it's better than one judge constantly making poor decisions.

11/11/2015
Irving/TX
Noe Araiza
Etheridge/Nimitz
The Supreme Court Justice System should have term limits because if they are to be expected to make decisions based on what is happening and occurring in today's politics, they need to know what today's politics is going through. Appointing new judges and court justices offers a more updated state of mind which will bring forth a better knowledge of situations that are taking place.

11/11/2015
Diamond Bar/ California
LucasP4
Wong/Lorbeer
No, I don’t think they should have term limits, because if they are really good judges then people will want them to stay until they retire. If they do not have good behavior, they can be impeached and then removed, as It says in the 3rd article of section one in the constitution. Also, if the current judges have been serving for a long time, which they have, then they must be really good at their job since they have not been impeached and removed. In addition, keeping judges for a long time keeps the judicial area more stable than your elected officials.

11/11/2015
Irving, Tx
Lexia Martinez
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
In my opinion I think that Supreme Court Justices should have a term limit in office. Reason because of that is because we need more than just one idea to have because it gives a better chance to make a better decision other than just having one choice. It's time to make a change to our supreme court justice to be good and have better track with how everything is going. I also think that in order to keep the system fair, judges should have terms too, just as the president and United State Senators.

11/10/2015
Rudyar, MT
Sheridan
North Star- Mrs. Campbell
I say that Supreme Court Justices should have a term limit in office. They will usually just have one mind set thougout their entire term. We need to be able to have new blood, new ideas running our Court systems. Like lets say that the person in term is from the olden days and was raised a certain way. Those beliefs have changed from today's beliefs. Time today has changed majorly from years ago, it's time to change our Supreme Court Justice every once in a while to keep up with today's national issues.

11/9/2015
Irving/TX
Scarlett
Etheridge/Nimitz
Supreme Court Justices should have term limits because if they are to be expected to make decisions based on what is considered right in today's society, they need to know what today's society looks like. Racism is still exampled today by the actions of the elder generations, and if these people are the kind of judges we have, how are we to know that their decisions won't come from a place of prejudice? As our ideas as a people change we need to make sure the people demonstrating those ideas are the ones making decisions in our courts.

11/9/2015
Irving, TX
Alicia
Bradley/Nimitz
Supreme Court Justices should not have term limits. As many people have come to realize, the majority of congressmen, senators and presidents partake in what is often called a popularity contest to win the hearts of the public. This means they are generally too concerned with getting reelected to put the constitution as their primary concern. Justices need not worry about making the public happy as they are in their offices to make decisions on interpretations of the constitution, whether it makes the general public happy or not. If their terms were to be limited, their judgement may be skewed more towards what would make everybody happy rather than going with what the constitution says on the matter at hand.

11/9/2015
Irving/Texas
Aron
Bradley/Nimitz
Supreme Court justices should have term limits set in place. Justices need to be able to be switched out to change alongside the political climate of the time; justices appointed in 2015 might not be able to relate to court cases set in 2065. Assigning term limits can also keep the political leaning of the court fair, as the majority party who represents most of the US at the time will represent the courts in cases that affect the people, especially over controversial issues like abortion and immigration.

11/6/2015
Murrieta, CA
Xiara
Jabro/ Creekside
I believe that there should in fact be term limits on federal judges and supreme court justices. I don't think that federal judges should get the option to stay a federal judge until they pass or decide otherwise. I think that in order to keep the system fair, judges should have terms too, just as the president and United State Senators.

Related News
Related Resources
Share