- Ensuring Judicial independence: Life tenure insulates justices from political pressure and allows them to make decisions based solely on the law and their interpretation of the Constitution. It prevents the executive or legislative branches from influencing judicial decisions by threatening to remove or replace justices whose rulings they disagree with.
- Protecting Minority rights: A lifetime appointment allows justices to serve for an extended period, ensuring they can consistently protect the rights of minorities and marginalized individuals who may not have a strong political voice.
- Promoting Judicial expertise: Life tenure enables justices to develop deep expertise and knowledge of the law and the Constitution. This expertise is crucial in interpreting complex legal issues and making informed decisions that impact society.
- Maintaining stability and predictability: Long-serving justices provide continuity and stability to the Supreme Court, ensuring that legal precedents and interpretations remain consistent over time. This predictability is important for individuals, businesses, and the government to make informed decisions.
- Enhancing Public Confidence: A life tenure appointment enhances the public's trust in the judiciary by demonstrating the Court's commitment to independence and impartiality. It reinforces the notion that justices are not influenced by short-term political considerations.
Arguments against the current system of appointing justices for life:
- Lack of Accountability: Justices appointed for life are not directly accountable to the public. They cannot be removed from office by popular vote, which may result in a disconnect between the Court's decisions and the public's expectations.
- Political Influence: Despite life tenure, justices may still be influenced by their political ideology or the appointing President's views. This can lead to decisions that reflect partisan priorities rather than a neutral application of the law.
- Stagnation of Ideas: A lifetime appointment may lead to a lack of fresh perspectives and new ideas on the Supreme Court. Younger justices with different backgrounds and experiences may bring diverse viewpoints to the Court.
- Increased Politicization: In recent decades, the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees has become increasingly politicized, with intense scrutiny of their personal beliefs and past rulings. This can further erode public trust in the Court's impartiality.
- Court Packing: The possibility of expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court to achieve a desired political outcome is a concern raised by opponents of lifetime appointments.
The debate surrounding the current system of appointing justics for life highlights the inherent challenges in balancing judicial independence with accountability, expertise, and the evolving nature of society. Reforming the appointment process must carefully consider the potential consequences and impacts on the Court's role in the American legal system.