The Real Problem With Life Tenure on the Supreme Court:  Hat tip to Howard Bashman at How Appealing for his link to Edward Lazarus' article "The Problem of Supreme Court Justices' Remaining on the Bench Too Long:  Although It's a Genuine Concern, Recently Suggested Reforms Are More Problematic Than the Status Quo."  Lazarus' article critiques Paul Carrington's recent argument that Justices are taking their "life tenure" on the Court too literally, and should consider retiring earlier (Carrington's Op-ed can be found here).  For Lazarus, the problem is not that members of the Supreme Court are remaining on the Court when they are "too old or infirm to handle the job," the problem is that people tend to hold on to positions of authority for as long as they possibly can.  Lazarus argues that this tendency limits the Court by allowing them to make retirement decisions based on political factors, and could cause judicial decisions based on outdated world views.  Lazarus believes these problems can be addressed by establishing a system of set 18-year terms for Supreme Court Justices. 

Is it really a problem if Justices have "outdated" views such as interpreting the Constitution according to its original understanding or holding people fully responsible for their voluntary choice to violate the rights of others?

Speaking of limits, how about a word limit for article titles?