It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38.
I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. 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.
Keep in mind in all of human history only about 1/4 of violent revolutions are successful, many that "succeeded" left all parties involved much worse off. America, especially in its inception, was an incredible anomaly that far too many paint as something more in the name of American exceptionalism.
EDIT: Look, our legislature is a complete and abject failure. It's completely gridlocked, arguably by the design of private interests. If it were working to reflect popular interest, I imagine American law and government would look very different. I don't think any of what I'm suggesting here would be even slightly controversial to be quite honest.
That is a meaningless figure. Those that survived to adulthood had similar lifespans to us.
> I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred.
This is a common refrain from people who want to change things as they see fit against the wishes of those who disagree with them. If there were broad consensus to change the law as written then presumably the legislature would vote to do so. You are attacking the credibility of the institution rather than admit that something like half of the country doesn't share your views.
The legislature does not represent popular interests any more and hasn't for years [1]. This is widely studied and accepted. You can see it plainly even in its demographic and socioeconomic composition.
We don't have enough of a shared reality here to come to agreement and should agree to disagree.
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.
1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/11/growing-sha...
And to ensure they aren’t beholden to the guy promising them their next job. Compromise could be you become a nonvoting member of the Court after a certain age. You can ask questions at trial, deliberate with other members, et cetera. But you don’t sign opinions or dissents.