By then, he realized his mistake. As Emory University law professor David Garrow argues in the fall issue of the University of Chicago Law Review, a constitutional amendment mandating retirement at 75 would furnish badly needed protection against justices whose minds are no longer up to the job. During the 20th century, he notes, the court had 11 justices who stayed despite serious mental deterioration. But, alarmingly, the average age of retirement for justices has risen to 77. It's clear we can't rely on justices to know when to pack it in.
Many justices hang on awaiting a president they like.
Nor is it safe to depend on pressure from the other justices. They, in the end, have little leverage over a pigheaded colleague who has grown impervious to reason. Press exposure of failing justices may also be too much to hope for. Garrow also reminds us that when William Rehnquist suffered serious speech difficulties in 1981, due to a dependence on medication, the American people didn't find out for months, until he had to be hospitalized. A constitutional amendment forcing justices to leave at age 75 has two main imperfections.