Should the US Supreme Court be a ten year appointment, and would it be better to have an even amount of Justices?

One con I can think of is it will cost us more tax money if we shorten the term to ten years and have to pay pensions.

I think the premises should be flooded with a calibrated amount of carcinogenics, that will ensure the judges die of cancer within 10 or 20 years.
That way you get “natural” term limits, and you need not pay any pensions either!
It is quite brilliant an idea, if I say so myself.

@ragingloli First it’s not funny. Second, cancer is expensive for the tax payer too.

The only danger of having lifetime appointments is that one party could pack the court with justices that lean left or right, and the result could be felt for several decades. That does not happen all that often. I like having justices being able to serve a long time. It makes them less beholden to whoever appointed them.

What advantage is there to having an even number of justices? If there is a tie vote, there is no decision.

@JLeslie
First, you are wrong. Second, just deny them treatment.

if they had an even number and had a tie then they would not be able to make a desicion. Given that they are the court of last resort not being able to make a decision would render them pretty useless.

Hey! @ragingloli just described the Republican health care plan! You closet conservative you!

I agree @Lightlyseared there needs to be a tiebreaker in order for judgement to be rendered, right or wrong.

Here is an article on why SC judges have lifetime appointments interestingly it states that ” The majority of Americans agree that term limits for federal judges should be enacted….”. I was surprised to read that. I would have thought the opposite.

I think there should be term limits. Since they don’t get elected until they are older, I think they should also have regular competency testing, like, every year after the age of 65. What if a judge developed Alzheimer while sitting?

@ragingloli The flaw in your plan is with the relative susceptibility of the individuals to the carcinogen. Some might be dead within 2 years, while others might never get ill.

It would be a specially engineered carcinogen, optimised for maximum cancerousness.

A ten year term would result in the decisions being politically motivated. Not that they aren’t now, but it would be nice if they didn’t have a reason.

The scheme would be too impractical considering the hullabaloo involved with placing a new Justice on the Court.

It’s a hullabaloo in part because it is a lifetime placement.