Should Supreme Court justices have term limits?
91644
yes supreme court justices should have term limits because if they are automatically in for life or retirement then forward progress will be slower because of the nostalgic ideals of the justice modern problems deserve the attention of modern people as one gets older they tend to become more stubborn in their beliefs and policy will change at an absurdly slow rate.
820122
Yes, it is important, The U.S. Supreme Justices when they retire or leave or die are apponted by the President, how do you think John Roberts and Samuel Alito became Supreme Court Justices?\nYes , the president does have power in this area when it involves the appointment of Supreme court justices
952810
Your premise is wrong!  The U.S. Supreme Court has time and again showed that the U.S. Constitution is still alive and working.
899475
Judges shouldn't be rewarded seats via their political contributions!\n\nJudgeships should rewarded by their merit, qualifications, and their competence.
976186
1. lifetime\n2. supreme court \n\n:> peace\n.
1128494
It's an issue that has not been dealt with yet and could be contentious if it ever does. The problem is, the 22nd amendment, which limits presidents to two terms does not specifically say that the VP cannot have been president for 2 terms, but at the same time, the twelfth amendment states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Whether or not this applies to the interpretation of the 22nd amendment is not at all agreed upon and would involve a Supreme Court dispute if it ever arose.
593270
There are nine justices in total, the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.  The court does not need back-up because it can issue decisions without input from all of the justices if necessary.
962593
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. The Circuit Judges Act of 1869 again set the number of judges at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since.\n\nPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in his proposed Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. His plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court, however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, rendering the President's effort moot (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court and promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice; upon his death in 1945, all but one of the Court's members were his appointees.
558902
usually Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
70571
If you could categorize Justices empirically and state without qualification that four were always ultra conservative and four were always ultra liberal the ninth justice would be the 'swing vote' commanding a majority of five for whichever wing he or she sided with.\n\nMore likely this varies issue to issue.  You might have three solid pro-abortion votes, three solid anti-abortion votes with the othe three justices being the 'swing votes.'  The same would apply to any other hot button issues like gun control.
31033
There is no law that says he has to step down as a senator for any reason; if found guilty of an offense he can be publicly censured, but the Senate has no limitations as far as how many terms one senator can serve.  There have been many that have served for over 40 and 50 years...not a bad accomplishment, considering Senate terms are six years each.
240277
They don't play a role in the Supreme Court, the nine justices ARE the Supreme Court.\n\nThe job of the nine Supreme Court Justices is to interpret the Consitution and laws passed by Congrees (and the states as well).  In reviewing cases, they decide what the law means, and because they are the highest court in the US, you cannot appeal their decision.  They are an equal branch to the Legislature (Congress which passes laws) and the Executive (President which enforced the laws) of our Federal Government.  \n\nWith any law, there is always "grey areas" about what the law intended to do and how it is actually being used.  The Supreme Court rules on those questions like "When can the police search your car under the fourth amendment?" and "Does the President have the right to refuse to give Congress certain documents?"
38930
You want term limits stopped?  I don't think that's going to happen. And to echo the sentiments of another answer - thank god for the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.\n\nOr maybe you meant that you -want- term limits for US Congressmen?
168661
I'm not sure about California laws, but in the constitution, it states that everyone has the right to a speedy due process. I don't think the judge can sit on it for a long period of time.
806543
Yes.  Until the 1930s, Presidents voluntarily limited themselves to 2 terms, following the example of George Washington.  Then the great Liberal Democrat hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided he was going to be president for life (died in office during his 4 th term).  So the Constitution was amended in 1951 (the 22nd Amendment) to limit people to two (total) terms.
128440
Lifetime or until they retire. For example, in the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor just retired from the Supreme Court and was replaced with Samuel Alito. Chief Justice William Rehnquist died and was replaced by John Roberts. \nThey are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They can also be impeached or convicted of a crime and be removed from the court, but this is very rare. I am not sure about Federal Courts, but I know for a fact that no Supreme Court justice has ever been removed by impeachment - only by death or retirement.
779474
but you'd run out of candidates very quickly. There are usually only 3-5 former prezes alive at a time, and often 2-3 of those are too old/ill to serve.