General Discussion

they would (should) come to the same conclusion.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2018-10-02/why-did-the-framers-give-lifetime-tenure-to-supreme-court-justices

This is, in large part, because the tenure for a Supreme Court Justice is unlimited. In my quest to understand why, I turned first to James Madison’s “Notes of Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787.” Here, Madison relates the moment the framers got the judicial ball rolling in Philadelphia. For the record, it was on a Monday in June.

“On [the] motion to agree to the first clause, namely ” resolved that a National Judiciary be established, “it passed in the affirmative nem. con.,” wrote Madison.

Nem. con. is an abbreviation for a Latin phrase that means “without dissent.” So, while the delegates unanimously agreed there would be a national judiciary, deciding what it would look like, and what it would do, would take some work. One place where there was quick consensus, with little if any debate, was that lifetime term in office for justices.

Klarman said the reason for that lifetime appointment was simple: To cultivate judicial independence. If you never have to worry about being re-elected or re-appointed then, “there’s no reason to tailor your decisions to the pleasure of the institution that does the appointing,” Klarman said.