Why are there life-terms on the Supreme Court? Doesn't that incentivize the justices to hold on past their prime, dying waiting for a new president or resigning in a politically motivated fashion? And don't life terms create a race to the bottom where younger justices are favored for longer remaining life?
The founding fathers thought that the US constitution would look like the UK. President = King, Congress = Parliament. The judiciary was practically an afterthought, and like UK courts, would be subordinate to Congress. “ In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Note the “such exceptions and under such regulations”.
As history turned out, Congress has barely used this power to rein in the courts and in the mid-19th century on the courts grew more and more powerful and have become a sort of mini-legislature.
James Madison already recognized this, writing in 1788 that he realized a mistake had been made in the constitution: “ as the Courts are generally the last in making their decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary Dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper ... ” (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s25...)
Most likely because the founding fathers didn't expect the justices to be split on party lines. They were intended to be impartial judges ruling on a limited set of federal laws.
I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then. Life was in general a 20 year term. Average life span in 1800 of 50 years. Today it's 78.6.
Life expectancy at birth was low because many people died in childhood, bringing down the average. Those who survived childhood lived much longer lives.
I used the historical list of US Supreme Court justices [0] and averaged the lifespan of the first 20 justices. The average was 67 years. Maximum was 91 [1].
>I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then.
This is false. The statistic doesn't imply this. Longevity has not increased significantly, it's that life expectancy from birth has increased because childhood illness became less of a concern. Once at adult age people generally still lived long, ignoring accidents which really wouldn't be a concern for the type of people who would be justices.
It is not like people dropped dead at 50. People who survived usually hit their 70s even when the expectancy was in 30s and 40s. The average is low because lot of kids and people died young.
The proper metric here would be life expectancy of active lawyers/judges in their 30s and 40s . They have double advantage of both generally surviving all the diseases till then and wealthy and educated enough to afford medical care available.
Even if the idea was that people may not survive long, it is a unpredictable and inconsistent way to set policy.
I'm sure the founding fathers expected Supreme Court justices to be rich, white, landowning men. What was the average age of that demographic back then?
Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much different. Furthermore, lots of justices resign a couple years before death. RBG was practically begged to resign, but alternately believed Hillary would win and/or thought she could outlast Trump.
The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddling preparing for leaving office. For example, in the defense department, officials will make recommendations and then leave office and profit from those same companies. If you're in office for life, this common (and almost impossible to prevent) kind of corruption becomes basically a non issue.
The federalist papers would shed light on such things, but actually reading them (and the wealth of nations)is likely to turn you into an independent who dislikes both parties.
Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much different.
The last 4+ justices appointed were in their 50s. Gorsuch was 50. A top name on the short list both times was Amy Coney Barett, 48. They've been grooming a 38 year-old, Justin Walker, for the court. He went from a few months of litigation experience to the federal bench to the DC circuit in a year.
Notice how all these people also look very healthy? They're trying to get people who will last a lot longer than 20 years.
I'd add the requirement of at least a year of criminal defense experience since this is almost completely lacking currently and it shows in the horrible decisions the court makes.
In India we have a fixed retirement age. Of course extensions can be granted on an exceptional basis, But in general you serve till a fixed retirement age and retire.
It also makes sense. Cognitive ability deteriorates with age. And you don't want very old, with illness to rule on important things.
The supreme court structure is very different for india. The strength of court currently is 34 judges and keeps increasing. Any single case goes to a bench of typically 2-3 judges . The largest ever bench was 13 when the 1973 constitution amendment case had come .
The idea behind no term limits is, the judge can choose to retire doesn't have to.
You have invested a lot of effort in getting a judge to the top as a country. you don't necessarily need a arbitrary date to retire.
Each individual has a capacity to serve upto different age unique to them. Setting a common age for all is not efficient, plenty of judges for example are employed in india post 65, in arbitration and government commissions.
It makes sense not have term limits when the court size is small.
The problem for america is that everything is political: judges and their retirement . In a 2 party first past the post/ winner takes all system that is inevitable.
The constitution doesn't specify how many justices there are. Or what the criteria should be for appointment. It isn't even clear who appoints/confirms them.
There are a lot of unplugged holes in the constitution. This is just another issue...
Why not 20 year limits?