1. In theory, they dont have term limits, so they cant be affected by the opinons of other officials.
  2. Yeah, I know it's a lifetime appointment. I can see both advantages and disadvantages with that. For example their mental health could deteriorate as they get old. They could lose connection with modern society... But there are advantages too as you say.
  3. There function is to interpret the law as it is written. I despise justices on both sides who try to rewrite it as they see fit.

    Historically, it has worked. All of the justices apointed by Nixon went against him during Watergate. More recently, they seem to have less backbone.
  4. I agree. What if getting old and getting bad mental health makes them bad at interpreting the law?
  5. Who is to be the judge though? Liberals routinely acuse those who hold differing opinions to their own, of being insane.

  6. Well, I don't think anyone should be the judge of that, because as you say, it's hard to have anyone who can be objective about it. Maybe they could have an age when they have to retire, or limited terms, like say, you can only be a judge for 15 years.

    Lifetime tenure has advantages too though. What do you think?
  7. Both way have advantages, and disadvantages.
  8. Just a fun video to watch:

  9. http://rt.com/news/israel-rejects-un-nuclear-transparency-298/

    "Israel has rebuffed a UN call to adhere to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open itself to international inspectors, calling the suggestion a "meaningless mechanical vote" of a body that “lost all its credibility regarding Israel."

    So much hypocrisy...