Remove Life Tenure for the Supreme Court The Supreme Court consists of nine justices where in the system implemented under the Constitution, can reign until death or impeachment. This process has in most viewers eyes been successful for the last 250 years, however recently posed a debatable issue. Is the current system of life tenure for Supreme Court justices problematic? Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren argue that there should be a limit of 18 years and staggering 2 year appointments. Author Ward Farnsworth combats this saying there is no issue with the life tenure and it should be left as is. I would favor Calabresi and Lindgren because I see the system in place as a growing problem and limiting the terms as a solution. When the life tenure was originally put in place, it was done so that the highest form of the judicial branch could be left impartial and independent of political decision making. The most important aspect to uphold this problem is ensure that Supreme Court justices cannot be reelected. Calabresi and Lindgrens proposal does not allow for this but rather limits the extreme cases where justices can rule longer than appropriate. For most of the United States history, justices have held their position for an average of fifteen years. However, recently this has drastically shifted. Since 1970, the average has risen to twenty-five years and the average time between position changes has risen from two to three years. Also the average age of justices has gone from sixty-eight to seventy-eight. Although life tenure in the past has not seen an absurd length of reign, it is clear that this practice is becoming increasingly more evident. Justices William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens served for 33 and 35 years. There are five justices sitting on the Supreme Court today who have served 18 years or more. An 18 year cap for justices would give a long enough tenure to keep the distinction that the Judiciary branch has over the others, yet create a consistant necessary change of positions. As Supreme Court justices continue to hold their positions at an older age I see the need for an 18 year cap more crucial. Technology continues to grow at a rapid rate as shown with Moore’s Law, and many aspects of society such as environment, economy, and medicine continue to change. Stability is necessary with the Supreme Court, but as is up to date ideology and dynamic views. A justice who is 80 years old who has served for 30 years may not fully understand or accept the extremely different society that exists in contrast to when they were put into position. An 18 year cap would keep this from happening, and 2 year staggering appointments would allow for new outlooks and views on issues at a consistent rate. Calabresi and Lindgren give a few arguments that aim at combating the abuse of a political structure our countries framers built. These include such tactics as strategic retirement, younger justice appointees and mental decreptitude. With the current life tenure, Supreme Court justices can decide to hold out on retirement until a president with similar ideology comes into offices. This is problematic specifically with a justice who may not be fit for their position any more yet decides to hold out. An 18 year limit and staggering appointments would not allow this practice to happen. Diminishing mental decision making would also be less likely since they would most likely be removed before an age that exacerbates their decision making. This is not a theoretic scenario as cases such