But the average life expectancy of an American in 1787 was about 36, less than half what it is today. The 21st century reality is that when Supreme Court vacancies arise, one of the criteria for selection is that the judge be young enough to serve for several decades. Many of our most distinguished jurists, judges like J. Harvie Wilkinson and Diane Wood, both in their sixties, are by now too “distinguished” for our highest court.
One reason why judges weren't given term was because a person in the 18th century would have lived less than a person in the 21st century. Therefore when a judge would die the next judge would be young enough to take over office. Now, in the 21st century when judges are to be replaced, the judges who can take office are not young enough.
I believe that judges should have life terms to serve in our courts. If the President, Senators, Governors, House of Representatives have a time set to serve why not our Supreme Court judges. Also, we need a fresh, young open-minded person in our highest courts that accepts the changes happening in our society; like the acceptance of same sex marriage. Our future judges must be up to date with the future changes that will continue to happen as the years go by. Giving a judge an unlimited time to serve prevents from young ones to have a position on office and allows them to believe to have more power than the one they already have.
