The topic of this forum is: Should U.S. Supreme Court justices continue to be appointed for life or, instead, be elected and subject to term limits? What likely advice would be offered by one of the philosophers we have studied? Craft an informed position on the first question AND discuss one philosopher’s perspectives which would lend support to your argument.

Success tips:

• Contribute clear, concise, substantive comments.
• Base your posts on knowledge gained from your textbooks, class lessons, or other research sources.
• Do not include opinion.
• Utilize and cite outside research.
• Correct grammar and spelling before posting
• Review the Rubric for guidance on creating excellent follow-up posts. Your follow-up post must include substantive content and extend meaningful discussion by building on previous posts. Simple congratulatory comments or those merely expressing agreement/disagreement earn zero points.

This forum focuses on the judiciary branch of government. In democracies around the world, the selection and term of judges varies widely. Countries strive to balance various objectives when designing court systems. For example, how to ensure equitable justice independent of political pressures while also reflecting the will of the people and values of society. As we know from current events, the justices of our Supreme Court are appointed via a politicized process but then may serve for as long as they wish. Diverse interest groups in our pluralistic society are intensely focused on each appointment since the make-up of the Court influences our legal system and lives. Varying philosophical and political viewpoints clash during the nomination and approval process. The ensuing controversy often raises questions about whether our judicial system should be redesigned or left just as it is. This forum explores one possible modification of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can pick between

Plato, Aristotle, Machiavell, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau