Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Appointments to the US Supreme Court should be for fixed 18-year terms
Lifetime appointments can increase the legal expertise of the Court.
The Justices' legal expertise, and the knowledge that they are highly qualified, is important in building
public trust in the court,
and thus in building the court's legitimacy.
Legal expertise is important because the Supreme Court frequently has to deal with complicated legal matters.
As with any skill, more experience
one's expertise. The same is true of being a Supreme Court Justice.
Judges who spend longer on the Court will necessarily rule on more cases than those who spend less time on the Court, meaning Judges who serve longer have more judicial experience.
Legal experience is not always a very important quality for a Supreme Court judge.
As Justices rely on
when making judgements, current Justices can still benefit from the past experience of the Court without having to have been on the court at the time those decisions were made.
Supreme court justices in other countries have mandatory retirement without it causing issues due to lack of expertise. E.g the
Israeli Supreme Court.
All human beings are flawed, and Justices are no exception. Trusting a single person with power indefinitely makes errors and poor judgement much more likely, and more long-lasting. Rotating Justices, on the other hand, allows old errors to be reviewed and corrected.
This expertise comes at the
of being in touch with American society and changing norms.