Answer:
It is a matter of debate whether it is fair or unfair that Supreme Court Justices serve for life. Some argue that life tenure ensures the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, as Justices are not beholden to any political party or individual and can make decisions based on the law and the Constitution rather than on political considerations. Others argue that life tenure can lead to Justices remaining on the Court for too long and becoming out of touch with contemporary issues, and that there should be some mechanism for rotating Justices off the Court after a certain number of years.
If I were to change the rule, I would consider instituting a mandatory retirement age for Justices, similar to the mandatory retirement age that exists for some other federal judges. This could ensure that there is some turnover on the Court and that Justices do not remain on the Court for an overly long period of time. To ensure that the Justices remain impartial and fair, I would also consider implementing a process for selecting new Justices that is merit-based and apolitical, such as a panel of legal experts evaluating candidates and making recommendations to the President or Congress.
Step-by-step explanation: