Definitely Congress first

...then worry about the court.

Yes, in the prime of mental health, knowledge and alertness they can serve well. Left to serve for life they can become asleep at the wheel (desk). Physical and mental health ailments take over their ability to do the job. Do they receive medical evaluations to determine their ability to serve? The president has medical review. Judges at all levels from Supreme Court on down should be required to have medical evaluations. And term limits.

Absolutely not. Our Founding Fathers chose to have the Supreme Court appointments for life to avoid partisan politics. In order to be an impartial, the Court should not be made up of those who would be beholding to the party in power when a new term would present itself. Think of the last confirmation scandal and multiply that times the number of the next cycles of appointments.

Term limits of SCOTUS is in my opinion a very serious consideration of concern for doing so may result in consequences left to political agendas that may not serve this Republic well. Elections have consequences and a possible SCOTUS appointment is a factor to consider when casting a ballot.

Term limits imposed for U.S. Senators or U.S. House Congresswomen / Men the time to term limit one is in a primary election by the voters. Achieving the term limit one must be active in identifying an opposition candidate and aiding the opponent to prevail. I identify as a strong constitutional conservative registered as a republican.

I question the RNC and my state and county GOP's always for towing the R party's shove down your throat candidates during the primary. The GOP's when they engage in promoting one R over other R's in the primary are breaking the GOP's constitution which is their stated by-laws.

All of us through our research have a choice at primary election time to cast our vote to term limit an incumbent. Learn all you can about candidates. If one is an incumbent study their voting records, understand their conservative scorecards go to events where the candidates will be speaking. Have your questions/concerns generated in advance and pose to them forcing a public record of their answer.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Supreme Court Justices serve for life. They serve "during good behavior." And if they do not abide by their oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, they need to be impeached and removed from the bench. One sitting SC Justice said that she thinks the Court should look more to International Law than to the U.S. Constitution. That is NOT "good behavior" and she should be impeached.

There should definitely be an age limit!

No term limit but I would be open to a retirement age. If a Justice is so debilitated they need to work from home it is time to retire. If a Justice has so many age related illnesses they spend more time seeking medical care than they do at the bench, it is time to retire.

Not term limits, but a mandatory age of retirement might be an alternative.

Not Term limits but a mandatory retirement age - probably 75 - 80. Some people need to be pushed to step aside.

There should be an age limit. Ginsberg should be retired. Her illnesses must necessarily interfere with her ability to do her job.

Speaking as an 81 year old, I think Supreme Court Justices should definitely retire by 80 years old - maybe 75. What nature does to the body and mind coupled with the stress of serving on the Supreme Court should be enough for anyone. If they have been on the court for several years and haven't accomplished all that they want, then get out of the way of others and let them get it done. No one is so important to any institution or business as to be irreplaceable.

They serve "during good behavior."

Regular medical review to ensure they are of sound body and mind when they are getting older, say over 75 years old perhaps. Otherwise can we really say they have the capacity to make such important judgements?

The best solution is to create Supreme Court term limits by statute. Several proposals exist for statutory term limits. The one we favor would give justices a fixed term of 18 years. Appointments would be staggered to allow each president two appointments per term, one in both the first and third year.

There should always be limitations so there wont be abused of power.

There have been several similar proposals to implement term limits for the nation's highest court, including Professor of Law at Duke University Paul Carrington's "Supreme Court Renewal Act of 2005".

I always believe that everything is fine, just as long as there some limitations.