Should Supreme Court justices have life tenure? Recent studies have shown that since 1970, justices are serving much longer terms on the Court than ever before (more than 25 years on average), with the average interval in time between vacancies also increasing (see Steven G. Calabresi and James Lindgren [2006], "Term Limits for the Supreme Court: Life Tenure Reconsidered," Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 29:769–877). Gone are the days of a short-term justice like Sherman Minton. Law professor Sandy Levinson, in his book Our Undemocratic Constitution, says that it's troublesome that Supreme Court justices now stay on the Court for decades. Why might that be a problem? Consider this question from a democratic sense, particularly when one considers the fact that ideology (and not the law) often influences the most important decisions of the Court. Should justices have a time limit on how long they can serve on the Court? Nothing in the Constitution requires that there be exactly nine people on the Supreme Court. Would increasing the size of the court alleviate the concern regarding the recent trend of justices serving longer terms?

Supreme Court refers to the highest body to give the justice by ensuring the implementation of the laws. The court is charged with to ensure the justice to the public.

There is problem to some extent if the judge stays in the court for a long period of the time as it might influences the most important decisions of the Court.

The judges must be appointed for the life time Because they intended judges to be able to make decisions free from political or public pressure, the Constitution's makers guaranteed job security for federal judges.

Learn more about Supreme court here:

https://brainly.com/question/12848156

#SPJ1