U.S. Supreme Court Justices ought to have term limits.

FrameworkAlthough in this debate I did not intend for my opponent to set forth a specific plan, I will accept his 15 year plan. I do stipulate, however, that this be the only change to the system that my opponent may argue from this point forth. I will assume that nothing about the system of the supreme court will change other than when a justice is appointed, they will serve a maximum of 15 years as a justice. Rebuttals"Aging and the Supreme Court"Although this argument regarding human life expectancy is interesting, the statistics regarding life expectancy at hand are HEAVILY skewed by infant mortality rates (1). The point regarding the differences in average age are interesting as well, but my opponent cites no evidence to suggest that just because modern supreme court justices are older, that they are in some way, inferior. Just because modern judges are older does NOT mean that they are inferior. Furthermore, I would like to point to the current chief justice who is actually the youngest chief justice to have served on the supreme court in history. A benefit of older judges would be more life experience in the court system. My opponent throws out the word "Neuroscience" but cites no expert in neuroscience that suggests that any justice in history has ever been found to be mentally unfit. Furthermore, my opponent cites no sources of judges found to be mentally unfit who ALSO remained a supreme court justice after being found so. Furthermore, the current average age of a supreme court justice is currently 67 years, 11 months, not the average age of the oldest collection possible. (2)"The Supreme Court of Ole"My opponent claims that life tenures give too much power to the president. This point is nullified by the fact that the supreme court is not a partisan body of government. Furthermore, Justices are not in the court to further their political agenda. They serve to determine the legitimacy of legislature, and pass judgment on other matters, not forward their political ideologies. My opponent also makes the claim that supreme court justices should reflect current ideals, not the ideals of 30 years ago. This point is confusing to me. Is my opponent unaware that usually people live much longer than 30 years? This point is also an exaggeration as the average tenure of a Supreme court justice is 25.5 years. Finally, only 2 of 9 are Reagan appointees, neither of which were particularly partisan before becoming justices. Furthermore, 4 of the 9 presidents have been elected within the past 7 years (2)My final rebuttal regards my opponents claim that 15 year tenures would provide a steady bedrock for justice (which he agreed was necessary) but (as my opponent is no expert on the finer complexities of American government) cites no source at all to suggest that a 15 year tenure would be at all beneficial, furthermore, the 15 tenure limit would be detrimental to very young judges (who my opponent said would be superior because their ideals are more current). Young judges, like Chief Justice John Roberts, would be forced to retire from the court at the relatively young age of 65. SummaryMy opponents statistics are skewed, or irrelevant, and his plan would only weaken the judicial system and bedrock of American justice (see Con, point 2). His points are also rebutted by Con point 3. My opponents argument overall represents a lack of understanding of the purpose and design of the Supreme Court, and the plan he puts forward would, overall, harm the judicial branch without providing any real benefits. Furthermore, my opponent makes the bold claim that my points only regard a system that involves re-election, but this is not true. Although it does weaken Con Point 1, it leaves Points 2 and 3 unaffected.1. . http://articles.washingtonpost.com...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://wiki.answers.com...