I commend the entirety of Bruce Bartlett's column, "18 years should be long enough," to your attention. In it, Bruce presents a persuasive argument that the Republic might be better served by consitutionally limiting the appointments of Supreme Court Justices for single terms of 18 years. The choice of 18 years is to allow their terms to be staggered at 2 year intervals.
This would ensure a regular pattern of turnover on the Court and, according to Bruce, lower the intensity of the aperiodic battles over nominees, like the one(s) we are about to experience. It would also have the salutary benefit of reversing the trends toward younger appointments and older retirements that Bruce documents, both of which seem to be responses to the politics of these nominations.
This one would be worth the trouble of amending the Constitution.
Other blogs commenting on this post