> I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder. That was among the concerns that led

> I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder. That was among the concerns that led the framers of the Constitution to make the SCOTUS a lifetime appointment. It's designed to be a brass ring that, once you grab it, nothing should be influencing your rulings but your own heart and mind. The constraint upon that power is that the Court's initial position is the weakest relative to the other branches: any ruling they make that doesn't rest directly on the Constitution can be undone with a change of the law, and nobody shows up in the criminal side of their Court unless the executive decides to try to enforce a law.