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

Hi tylergraham95,I thank you for starting the debate, and would like to formulate my argument here so as there remains no confusion on the issue.My contention is that Supreme Court Justices should have a 15 year non-renewable term limit, the appointment would remain in the hands of the Elected President and the house could then determine what the required retirement age should be, whether that be 75 to 80.Argument #1 l Why Fifteen Year Term Limits?Currently our the Constitution of the United States lists this in regards to how long a Supreme Court Justice is to serve."The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."[1]Aging and the Supreme CourtThis "good behavior" has been interpreted to mean until death, resignation or removal from office via impeachment. Per Article III of the Constitution created in 1787, this has been in effect ever since and the ruling on this matter has not changed. However, a great many things have changed, for instance the average age has changed drastically since 1787.Surely when you compare the average age of a Supreme Court Justice to a commoner in the late 1700s you will find a significant difference, but the average age of the first Supreme Court (made up of 5 Justices) was 69.4.[2] Which happens to be boosted by John Jay's unusually long life for that era, passing at 84 years old (more than double the average life expectancy).[3]Now the Average age of a Supreme Court Justice is (considering the last 5 who passed) is at 87.8, a whole 18.4 years older than the average when the Constitution was originally written.[4] This is a concern because recent advancements in neuroscience have revealed that the brain deteriorates over time, which could feesibly result in the breakdown and loss of memories as well as other cognitive processes. Having a age limit and term limit, will keep the healtiest of judges in place.Supreme Court Justices of OleCurrently we have two Federal Judges, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy still in place from the Reagan Administration who appointed them, both being a Justice for over 25 years. This is simply too much power given to dead presidents. Supreme Court Justices, though not elected and appointed by an elected official, the President and then confirmed by Congress. They should then reflect the current political values of at least the last 15 years. With the average tenure being 26 years (used to be 15 prior to the Civil War), this has created a strange situation where we have ideologies from political administrations 30 years in the past, making rulings on present day issues. In order to more closely represent the interest of the people of the United States, it seems necessary to make this amendment to the Constitution to update this Article to more be in alignment with a government that represents the people of today, rather than 30 years ago.Benefits and Other Accompanying ChangesI agree that our judicial system should remain consistent and 15 year terms are fairly long terms, yet shorter than is currently seen so as to provide the aforementioned proper representation. In order to also attract the best of our countries judicial system, we should have a scaling pay for Justices, relative to the cost of living at that particular time, as many are currently deterred by lower pay than their current job as an Attorney or Judge.I also agree that judicial elections by the people themselves, where they had to run campaigns and the like would be very harmful to our judicial system but my contention does not require that with the addition of term limits.Concluding Statements:Due to the fact that my opponent seems to have argued against this motion with the inclusion of national relections for Supreme Court Justices, my contention of favoring an amendment which requires 15 year term limits with no renewal does not apply to any of his arguments. This is a very practical and logical change as with the change to the average age of the Justices and in order to more closely represent the interests of the people, this motion should be sustained.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://en.wikisource.org...;[2] Ages were: 78, 56, 68, 61, 84[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] Ages were: 81, 91, 91, 91, 85