By Steve Brawner, © 2018 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Regarding the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, you know as much as I do about what happened, or didn’t happen, so many years ago. Likewise, your guess is as good as mine as to what happens next. I hope the FBI investigation provides something definitive. I suspect it won’t.

If that’s the case, the few senators who haven’t made up their minds will be faced with a difficult choice. Do they appoint to the Supreme Court a man who may have once, or more than once, terribly abused another kind of power? Or do they keep a person out of office based on unproven allegations?

Instead of trying to answer questions that for the moment are unanswerable, let’s camp out on another aspect of this story: The fact that justices serve for life. 

That’s one reason this story is so momentous and riveting. Kavanaugh, 53, could spend more than 30 years making decisions that affect all Americans, and he could help set precedents that hold for centuries. While presidents can serve only eight years and members of Congress must be re-elected, justices potentially are limited only by the grave. They have served an average of 16 years, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society, but they can serve much longer. And once given power, a Supreme Court justice almost never loses it. One has been impeached by the House but was acquitted by the Senate. Another resigned under the threat of impeachment.

I’m 49. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he could be a justice the rest of my life.

That longevity, and the fact that there are so few justices, help make them so powerful. There have been only 113 of them, compared to 43 presidents, and there are only nine of them at any one time. A 5-4 decision can change American life. In contrast, there are 535 members of Congress when every seat is filled.

Moreover, while the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal, modern politics has elevated the presidency and the courts above Congress, which is mired in gridlock and ineptitude.

Being a Supreme Court justice apparently is very fulfilling, because many remain in their seats a long time. The court’s longest-serving member, Justice Clarence Thomas, has been in office 27 years. Since he’s only 70, he could be there another 15 years or longer. That would make him the same age as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85. Justice Stephen Breyer is 80.

Presidents know many of their actions are subject to judicial review, must be approved by Congress, and/or can be undone by the next president. But their appointment of a Supreme Court justice lets them influence American policy long after they are gone. They thus have a powerful incentive to nominate justices as young as justifiable. President George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas when Thomas was 43. Three of the last four justices were 50 or younger when appointed.

Voters understand how important these nominations are. In the 2016 election, while issues like President Trump’s border wall and Hillary Clinton’s emails received much of the attention, the status of the Supreme Court hovered over many voters’ decisions. Justice Antonin Scalia had died, so that seat was open. Three of the justices were 80 or close to it.

Some voters who had concerns about Trump and Clinton felt they had no choice but to select the candidate who would appoint the most acceptable justices. Those voters’ expectations are being confirmed. The winner of the 2016 presidential election has already had the chance to appoint two justices. If Trump wins a second term, he may appoint at least two more.

Including lifetime appointments in the Constitution was done to lessen the influence of day-to-day politics on the court’s decisions, which clearly happens with the elected Arkansas Supreme Court. It reduces conflicts of interest and opportunities for corruption. Eighty-year-old Supreme Court justices probably are not angling for a job at a lobbying firm.

On the other hand, the idea that someone should hold power for life seems inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution. Indeed, it’s one reason the colonists rebelled against Great Britain.

Maybe it would have been better from the beginning to just go with the historical average: one 16-year term.

That way they’d be there a long time, but not a lifetime – not theirs, and not ours.

Steve Brawner is a syndicated columnist in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.