It's NOT the judges..It's the TERMS..

[SoCalDem]

Lifetime appointments were initiated to PREVENT politics from entering into the equation. Judges who never had to stand for election were thought to be untainted by politics.

The real problem is that younger and younger ideologues are being presented for judgeships, and lots do not even have the qualifications necessary to do a good job.

So a very partisan 40-something lawyer, can end up ruling from the bench for 35-40 years..Get enough partisans of one leaning, and we have a real problem.

Saying they are not political appointments is just a big fat lie..Regardless of which party, it's almost better to just go ahead and elect these judges. Aty least then their qualifications and histories would be fair game, and they could be voted out.

I would actually prefer that there be an age limit..50 minimum to be eligible. That would pretty much guarantee that they would have had a full career of decisions and work that could point to their real philosophy..and instead of lifetime appointments, maybe an 8year term...with a maximum of 2 consecutive terms..

[Eric J in MN]

1. They should have to be at least 65 years old to serve on the federal bench

That would shorten the terms and prevent any one person from having too much influence over federal law.

[SoCalDem]

2. I agree.. 65 is better than 50..

Especially when you take into account how much longer people are living and serving these days.. There's a website that lists ALl the supreme court judges from Day One, and most of them did not serve very many years at all.. Some only a couple..
That ensured that there was always a mix of people and ideas..

Lifetime appointments are a bad idea these days. EVERYTHING is political...especially judges. They should either have to stand for election or have specified terms..