Should SCOTUS justices be elected?

[TDAS04]

What do you think?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Option 2.

[TDAS04]

Option 2.

I agree.

[ElectionsGuy]

Ideally it would be nice for them to be elected, but I'm fine with option 2 though. Not fine with them being there for 25+ years.

Note: For elections, it would be fine if they were only originally elected with a term that will eventually end at retirement or end of the term.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 2 (sane)

[TDAS04]

If I could rewrite the US Constitution, the justices would be appointed and confirmed by the same process as IRL, but would have to retire after 20 years.  They could use any or all of those years, and they would face no retention votes or reconfirmation votes.  After they're done, they would not be allowed to come back.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The status quo has worked just fine.

[TDAS04]

The status quo has worked just fine.

The main problem I have with lifetime appointments is that if SCOTUS makes a bad decision, we could be stuck with that decision for a very long time.

Still, SCOTUS should be able to make unpopular decisions, so the status quo is better than elections before the general public.

[SWE]

Option 2.

I agree.

[Simfan34]

I'd rather be shot than have an elected judiciary.

[LeBron]

The problem with elections is they would then be influenced by outside groups to rule a certain way rather than independent thinking, differing ideologies and basing decisions off of interpreting the Constitution.

However, I would support an age limit of 70 because Scalia, Kennedy, (soon to be) Thomas and heck, even Breyer and Ginsburg to have just got to go. I like how some SC Justices will cement a President's legacy as Sotomayor and Kagan will do for Obama, but there's just got to be a point (preferrably 15-20 years) where they're forced to step down and let newer, younger Justices arise and allow for a faster evolvement in more effective decisions that coincide with popular public opinions.

[Goldwater]

Option 2. Electing judges is a horrible idea.

[IceSpear]

Hell no. I have mixed feelings on limiting their time though.

[Lief 🗽]

Elected judges are the absolute worst thing.

SCOTUS terms should last 18 years, with a term ending every two years.

[RosettaStoned]

 Ideally, yes, they should be elected.

 However, I would be comfortable with every justice having to retire after a new President is sworn in.

[MurrayBannerman]

Elected judges is the worst idea ever.

Well, one of them anyways.

[SteveRogers]

Ideally, yes, they should be elected.

 However, I would be comfortable with every justice having to retire after a new President is sworn in.

That's even worse. If they were going to be term limited, elected or otherwise, it should definitely be a longer term than four years. The whole point of an independent judiciary is that it isn't supposed to be dependent on the swings in the public mood every election cycle.

I don't really have a problem with justices sticking around for 25+ years because I think there's value to having consistency in the law. Ideally Justices shouldn't have to worry about what "we" think will be "bad decisions." And if a court is consistently producing "bad" decisions, the proper remedy is to get more proactive about either amending the constitution to circumvent such rulings or impeaching justices (the former should only be used for making minor clarifications/ updates to the language of the Constitution, and the latter extremely rarely).

To me the main problem with the current system is that you end up with a sort of lottery where whichever party happens to control the White House when a judge finally kicks the bucket gets to appoint a new one.  I don't really know how you fix that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Electing judges is an awful idea and mandatory retirement ages strike me as discriminatory, so I'm really not sure that there's any feasible option better than the current system.

[TDAS04]

Electing judges is an awful idea and mandatory retirement ages strike me as discriminatory, so I'm really not sure that there's any feasible option better than the current system.

I agree that there should be no mandatory retirement age.  People in their 70s can still be good judges.

That's why I think that SCOTUS justices should just be required to retire after 20 years, regardless of age.

[Randy Bobandy]

Elected judges are the worst idea in the history of ever. Option 2.

[TDAS04]

Elected judges are the worst idea in the history of ever. Option 2.

Yes.  At least my poll is more than just that question, since it's also about lifetime appointments.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Electing judges is an awful idea and mandatory retirement ages strike me as discriminatory, so I'm really not sure that there's any feasible option better than the current system.

Why not fixed terms? It's really the only option that makes sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Electing judges is an awful idea and mandatory retirement ages strike me as discriminatory, so I'm really not sure that there's any feasible option better than the current system.

Why not fixed terms? It's really the only option that makes sense.

I'll concede that there's some merit to that idea, yeah. Maybe a decade or two.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Absolutely not.  The court is politicized enough.  Fixed terms, however, yes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Both electing judges and judicial term limits are bad ideas.