We don’t choose 90-year-olds; we choose 50-60-something year olds who then refuse to leave when realistically they are no longer capable of making complex decisions, especially if the “wrong” party is in office.
“Senior brain” isn’t just a joke: it’s actually very real. Supreme Court decisions last for lifetimes, which is significantly less “helpful or kind” to the victims of those decisions than putting regulations in place that mean an individual Justice doesn’t have to be singled out, it’s just the rules.
Besides, the process of approving new Justices is less likely to be fought to the death if it’s known that they can’t stay 40-50 years with no way to make them retire (unless they commit a major crime on the level of treason). And that’s really a big issue: we have a Congress that has announced (yet again) that they REFUSE to do their jobs until next year. That’s a long time to go without a tie-breaker in the highest court in the land. Taking partisanship out of the process is probably closer to what the Founding Fathers had in mind than adhering to the letter of the law, especially since the letter of the law is vague on the subject:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
