Why aren't the supreme court judges elected and replaced every four years.?

Answer 1

It is in the Constitution that they are appointed for life.

Answer 2

curiously some one's paranoia has ran it direction. except you're a ideas reader you do not know what the destiny involves. If elected you do not know if any of the justices will retire nor do all of us know who the guy will employ if one does retire. we've not have been given any theory what the two candidate will do while in place of work. you won't be able to predetermine what is going to take place. Are you psychic or something? you are able to arise with probably eventualities yet those are actually not for specific. enable each and each guy or lady forged their vote and enable's see what happens. right this is a query did you assert enable each and each American get on its knees and start up praying in the previous the present president in place of work have been given in there some years in the past? We you conscious at that factor that our economic device may be in its contemporary project? you're able to have instructed us that then besides.

Answer 3

The supreme court - and judges in general - form an important safeguard in our system of goverment. While the legislature represents the will of the people - as best as it can be determined by election every-other year - the judiciary serves as a less responsive instrument to protect long-cherished rights of the people. Rights that the people might, in the heat of an election or crisis, be willing to give up ill-advisedly.

Thus, judges shouldn't generally be elected, and certainly shouldn't be elected to short terms, as they need to be free of concerns like job security, popularity, and poll numers, in order to rule in accord with the consitution, case law, and thier own conscience.

Answer 4

With the screening process they go through by both parties I see no reason to change the way it is. If they were elected then they would be spending all their time campaigning and would not be doing the best for the law of the land, but for special interest groups instead. We have enough of that already.

Answer 5

It would make the judicial branch too partisan. There'd be elections, party involvement, and too much dependence on the majority to determine how laws are interpreted.

The Court is supposed to protect the rights of everyone, and majority voters aren't always guaranteed to preserve the liberties of the minorities.

Answer 6

Because they need to be 'above' politics and the whims of the electorate.

Answer 7

See, there's this thing called the constitution...