Justices should have term limits: Your Say

Letter to the editor:

The obvious solution to keeping Supreme Court justices fresh is to do away with lifetime appointments ("Court icons Scalia and Ginsburg: Together at the peak").

It's absurd to allow people of any given political persuasion to decide their own tenure when their jobs can span two generations and have such far-reaching social impact. And, as Paste BN's article makes clear, the justices are essentially political appointees.

Society evolves, so it's important to keep perspectives current and transparent. To take just one example, my guess is that a younger court would have no problem with televising its proceedings in this age of digital technology.

Edward Lumas; Grand Rapids, Mich.

Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

I don't see a GOP candidate becoming president anytime soon. If Antonin Scalia or Anthony Kennedy steps down, this likely would give Democrats control of the executive and judicial branches of government for the next few years. The good news for Republicans is, appointment by the president hardly ensures confirmation by the Senate.

— Rich Barnes

Term limits are needed. The Supreme Court justices should not be allowed to set their retirement based on which president is in office. Quite frankly, more than 80 years old is ridiculous!

— Darrin Ackerman

The Supreme Court does not create anything new. The justices simply rule on the Constitution, which does not have term limits. Why would you want term limits for people who know the job? Just because you disagree with them?

— Dave Cawdell