The Pros And Cons Of Supreme Court Justices

811 Words2 Pages

Our current justice system has stood the test of time and has not proved to fail as of yet. The basic purpose of lifetime appointment is to assure the honesty of the power granted to Court Justices and protect them from political influence. Supreme Court Justices have life tenures unless they retire themselves, do something horrible enough to get impeached, or die in office. The Supreme Court justices should have life tenures because as current issues and court rulings- such as obamacare and same-sex marriage- are happening today, it is better to have older, unbiased, more experienced minds handle them. Long tenures in office won't take away power from the president or weaken the executive branch. Presidents don't lose the power to appoint According to one study, knowledge and certain types of intelligence continue to develop in ways that can even offset age-related declines in the brain’s ability to process new information and reason abstractly. Expertise deepens, which can enhance productivity and creativity. Some go so far as to say that wisdom—defined, in part, as the ability to resolve conflicts by seeing problems from multiple perspectives—flourishes. Getting a new judge would mean a lot of inexperience and because a judge with life tenure would know a lot more, there would be less mess ups and consequential decisions made by the supreme court. In conclusion, the topic of Supreme court terms is an important issue today because many court decisions have taken place this year, like , gay marriage, obamacare and court rulings relating to clean air and the environment. My position on whether Supreme Court Justices Should Have life Tenures is the best one because I personally believe that our current system that's been put in place around the beginning of the Supreme Court should not be changed because the judges are getting “too old to make

Open Document