The issue of U.S. justices serving in the Supreme Court for life has been debated for years. While our forefathers who crafted the constitution had reasons for the lifetime service, Americans have had varying positions regarding the issue. This essay discusses the two sides of the lifetime tenure of American justices serving in the Supreme Court, seeking to gain ground on whether the term should be retained or amended. The U.S. President is constitutionally allowed to appoint justices to serve in the country’s Supreme Court. However, he or she does not do this independently, but seeks the assent and counsel of the Senate before the justices are appointed. From history, most presidents give preference to judges who appear to rhyme with them in terms of ideological views. However, this does not rule out the fact that serving justices may have opposing opinions to those shared by the president. Importantly, there are no qualifications for justices defined by the constitution, leaving room for the president to make his appointments, which are confirmed by the Senate (Patterson, 2010).
Nevertheless, the confirmation process has always drawn significant attention, with lobby groups pushing for the rejection of some candidates with questionable track records. In rare cases, the president is allowed to withdraw the names of some candidates, especially when he is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the names are likely to be rejected by the Senate. In recent years, the approval of justices to start serving takes longer as compared to when President Truman was in office (Patterson, 2010). On the other hand, recess appointments can only be made when there is need to fill vacancies during the recess period of the Senate. Such appointments have to be approved or rejected immediately after resumption of session by the Senate. According to the U.S. Constitution, judges