The Supreme Court of the United States, the most powerful federal court in all of the US, is composed of nine members with lifelong tenure. For some background information, their current ages range from 55 to 82, with the average age of the justices being 75 at the end of the next president’s first term. Some, like the advocate group Fix the Court, believe this aging Court needs multiple reforms.
Fix the Court specifically believes firmly in a new system where Supreme Court Justices serve 18-year terms. Even Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 79 the dangers of a “superannuated [out-dated] bench.” Fix the Court specifically cites the high percentage of 5-4 rulings under Chief Justice Roberts as a reason for change.
But close-cut decisions do not necessarily indicate a “partisan” bench. Just “this past spring… Chief Justice Roberts [a conservative] voted with the four liberal justices to save Obamacare” and that Justice Thomas voted against the Conservatives, “permitting Texas to refuse to print Confederate flags on license plates” (S.M.).
It is also necessary to mention that an infusion of new members will, at the very least, provide new views and beliefs in the Supreme Court. But is this beneficial? Do fresher voices provide more impartiality, more justice? What even is justice? Is it Christian values? Is justice pro-life or pro-choice? If justice has a dynamic definition, does it not make sense to have a similarly dynamic Supreme Court?
And, perhaps most importantly, are we high school students even capable of responding to these questions fairly?
Link to the article here.