Discussion 10

4.  Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to put term limits in place for Supreme Court justices, say for 10–12 year terms, after which they would no longer be able to serve on the Court?

I think not. My reasoning is that if the Presidents continually appoint new Justices every so often, there will be a steady, albeit slow, flow of newer thought into the Supreme Court. The good thing about having long (life) terms for Supreme Court Justices is that there is an unlikelihood that the Supreme Court will vacillate greatly in its interpretation of the law. If our Justices are appointed by different Presidents and are of different ages, I feel that the Supreme Court will be more balanced. I don't see any harm in having the life-terms, because even 10-15 years, the suggested term limit, is a pretty long time for a person to be in a government appointment.  So, I feel that it will create no greatly negative effects. 

Tara Greiving: Hi Dana, 

I think this is a very clear explanation. I also agree I think having the same one for long terms helps with consistency in the court rooms.

Kristen McPherson: Hi Dana!

I think your thought on having one long term instead of different shorter ones will definitely help keep things the same in the court room. But also having some change could be good.