Is it time to rein in Supreme Court Justice terms?

When Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Sept. 18, another wave of uncertainty swept the country.

It wasn’t just the question of who would replace Ginsburg on the bench, but who would appoint her replacement and when.

Many want the winner of the Nov. 6 election to replace her. Supporters of current President Donald Trump want him to replace her, preferably before the election. Others are OK with a lame-duck Trump replacing her if it comes to that.

Trump has made it clear that he wants a justice of his choosing on the bench by the election to improve his chance of winning if there’s either a recount or if results aren’t clear when mail-in ballots pour in the days after the election.

As of right now, the situation with the supreme court is creating high anxiety across the country. For many, it’s just another anachronism in the U.S. Constitution that’s been forced into the spotlight. Of all the branches of government, it seems that the one meant to uphold the Constitution has become the one most susceptible to partisan politics and unpredictability. Worse yet, it often feels that it was meant to be that way.

Technically, the justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of Americans enshrined in the Constitution.

As we have found, things often don’t work that way. In many cases, justices are put in the position to remove rights from Americans. That’s especially true in the Donald Trump era where he is appointing judges with a record of fighting against reproductive rights in America. On top of that, his court will likely end health protections for millions of Americans. In the past, we’ve seen the supreme court decide elections and under Trump, that could be a possibility too.

But why are things like this and should they change?

Where do lifetime appointments come from?

The Supreme Court began with a single paragraph in the U.S. Constitution: