Whether they lost the popular vote is not really that relevant as that's not the basis of elections. They were elected to the presidency, therefore they got to

Whether they lost the popular vote is not really that relevant as that's not the basis of elections. They were elected to the presidency, therefore they got to make appointments. And I'm not sure the Supreme Court should be considering what polls say on most subjects if they're ruling on matters of law. Anyway while I think there is some merit in having judicial appointments which won't/can't be undone by the next administration I think the whole lifetime serving thing seems...unwise. 16 years would seem like a decently long tenure. 36 years is the current record and Clarence Thomas may well beat that if he's not somehow done in for corruption. Given how heated US politics is becoming (in rhetoric anyway) it's only a matter of time until the justices require presidential level security teams.