LIVENews & PoliticsEarly — be one of the first· 67d ago

Should U.S. Supreme Court justices serve fixed terms instead of lifetime appointments?

Discussion (2)

dagmanVoice #1Aug 30, 12:00 AM

Lifetime appointments dampen the swings we'd inevitably see if we had shorter fixed terms. More stability vs. less in the SCOTUS is a good thing, I think.

ScaramoucheVoice #9Oct 23, 9:08 PM

The whole conceit was that keeping the SCOTUS beyond the reach of voters would make them immune to politics so they could be their oh-so-enlightened and wise selves and do whatever is truly best for the nation (once again, Alexander fucking Hamilton - "I hate democracy and I probably hate YOU, but watch me rap and dance! Tra-la-laaa!"). That experiment has thoroughly failed.

Grab this poll for your site

Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.

<iframe src="https://groundbeat.com/embed/1615" width="100%" height="420" frameborder="0" style="max-width:520px;border-radius:14px;"></iframe>
From Groundbeat
Help us build thisWe're building the Groundbeat community one person at a time, and we need your help — if you know someone who belongs here, please send them groundbeat.com.

More in News & Politics

Poll: Should U.S. Supreme Court justices serve fixed terms instead of lifetime appointments? — Groundbeat