It's always been an issue, I seriously wish there were either term limits (they'd have to be long, like ten years) or age limits for the justices. I'm not sure having octogenarians (or near octagenerians) on the highest court is necessarily a good thing.
And I wish the justices were nominated in a different manner--a single candidate put forth by the president makes the court a political crapshoot, dependent on when judges retire or die, which leads to a disproportionate impact on the judicial system and the country depending on how these things randomly occur.
I apologise in advance for linking to a comedy performance on the announcement of someone's death, but I think Peter Cook explained it right in the 1960s when comparing mining and judging as occupations:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUZNynYXzM"]Peter Cook - Experiences Down The Mine - YouTube[/ame]
He was intelligent, influential, interesting man . . .
but he was also a bit of a piece of work.
The Republicans are already clamoring to block any attempt
for Obama to nominate and appoint a replacement, when
"The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a
successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee
has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days."
and he still has 360 days left in office. Republicans have recently succeeded in appointing
a new SC judge in their last year in office...
The house and senate have become extremely good at not doing things
(blocking, filibustering, etc), so they'll probably succeed here, too.
This is exactly why we need a different nomination process. Judges aren't picked by their qualifications, but by their political philosophy, which really runs counter to what they're supposed to be--impartial.
And since it is a political appointee for life, it ends up having a disproportionate influence on the government as a whole, depending on timing, political leanings, and age of the appointee.
