> Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing. Th

> Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing. They got lucky in almost every regard. I disagree. Technology and knowledge changes. Base human nature doesn't. It's not about "treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred". Nor about the average age and baseline knowledge then and now. It's that humans are subject to influence. And members of the judiciary - decision makers of the most obvious kind - are especially likely to be influenced if their security can be affected by the passage of time. Sure, the lifetime appointment does not 'guarantee' anything in terms of judicial independence or judicial freedom. But it does enable a judicial member to make decisions, if he/she wants to, in a manner free from the consideration that their politically-'incorrect' choices may cause them to retire, or be retired, early. And that is a security feature that judges must be afforded, however old they may be, in order to let them freely make decisions that they think are the best possible, whether they subscribe to originalist views or are judicial activists.