The fact that supreme court justices have a life time tenure is absurd, since it stops the motivation to change and get more new fresh ideas, in addition justices that are too old are endangering the nation with their bad decisions.
Some justices have remained on the court for too much time, even when they were mentally mal functioning, which is not acceptable. A good chief justice example is William Douglas who served as a chief justice for almost 37 years, and but that is not the bad thing. What was bad was that he had a stroke, and even after he had a stroke he served for 10 months more before retirement. It was so bad so that even his colleagues had to nullify all of his decisions regarding votes. Even people like Thurgood Marshall …show more content…
If we always have older supreme court justices with the same type of old fashioned ideas we will have decisions that are not relevant to the new times, which to me is something that is really important and has to change.
Different times gives different perspectives on big issues. When the older supreme court justices grew up, the people had a completely different view on gay marriage, immigration etc. which is something people from the younger generation has different more modern views on. Even the bill for gay marriage was barely passed by a 5-4 vote, but if the people who voted was younger, they would have a different perspective, which would have made the bill pass way easier.
One common reason for that my arguments are irrelevant and that supreme court justices should have life tenure is that no issues regarding age has happened so far, but that is wrong. As I mentioned older people tend to have different views regarding different matters, and even though they might not have officially messed up, they have had issues as I mentioned earlier. And since they are not keeping up with the modern times as well as more modern people, then I would not trust my country in their
Some justices have remained on the court for too much time, even when they were mentally mal functioning, which is not acceptable. A good chief justice example is William Douglas who served as a chief justice for almost 37 years, and but that is not the bad thing. What was bad was that he had a stroke, and even after he had a stroke he served for 10 months more before retirement. It was so bad so that even his colleagues had to nullify all of his decisions regarding votes. Even people like Thurgood Marshall …show more content…
If we always have older supreme court justices with the same type of old fashioned ideas we will have decisions that are not relevant to the new times, which to me is something that is really important and has to change.
Different times gives different perspectives on big issues. When the older supreme court justices grew up, the people had a completely different view on gay marriage, immigration etc. which is something people from the younger generation has different more modern views on. Even the bill for gay marriage was barely passed by a 5-4 vote, but if the people who voted was younger, they would have a different perspective, which would have made the bill pass way easier.
One common reason for that my arguments are irrelevant and that supreme court justices should have life tenure is that no issues regarding age has happened so far, but that is wrong. As I mentioned older people tend to have different views regarding different matters, and even though they might not have officially messed up, they have had issues as I mentioned earlier. And since they are not keeping up with the modern times as well as more modern people, then I would not trust my country in their