(06-13-2019 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't like the term limit. You appoint somebody who serves 25 years, and is still in good health, the last couple of years there are going to be severe temptations that could impair their independence.

I agree there are arguments in both directions. I've seen some proposals for 18-year terms, which I think is far too short. 27 years is a career. If someone is appointed at 50, they serve until 77. A later President can always reappoint a judge to a new term. I don't like the current system that rewards the President for appointing super-young judges or justices. And honestly, I don't know why those temptations are any stronger in year 26 than they would be in year 15. Most judges are pretty honest or they will get torpedoed during the confirmation process (especially if 60 votes are required). And there are still laws and the possibility of impeachment for those that might give in to "severe temptations".

Excluding active Justices, only 17 of 105 USSC justices served more than 27 years. But it is happening more and more frequently with the appointment of younger justices and better medical science, as 4 of the last 6 Justices to leave the Court had served >30 years, and Thomas (28 years), Ginsberg (26 years), and Breyer (25 years) are all very close to 27. If Ginsberg and Breyer stay moderately healthy, I expect both of them will pass 27 years.