that's it. stay toournd tuned, ray suarez and "inside story" start now. >> the nine justices of the supreme court include one justice in her 80s and seven in their 70s. the next president may get to a point two three even four justices shaping the nation's highest court for a generation. is black robes gray hair, it's tonighttonight's "inside story."

the time of the constitution was about 50 years old. they didn't expect that. the way the escort is built presidents are -- what they try to do is find the most ideologic individual who's young enough, who's old enough to have some experience but young enough they can survive another 40 years. you look at the last set of nominees, roberts was 50, kagan was 50, alito and sotomayor was also 50. what the presidents were incentivized to do is find somebody who is very ideologic and already has these entrenched views. most of the justices in the supreme court worked in a presidential administration, whether it was reagan or ford or obama, most worked in a presidential administration, i don't think you want third parties deciding how to

there are four justices clustered around 80 years old. we're talking about the reasonable assumption the next president whoever that may be could have a big impact on the makeup of the court for a long time to come. joining me are allen porter mendenhall and gabe ross, executive director of fix court who advocates for change and trups in the operation ofbetransportcy. transparency. >> if you accept this concept that there's a 4-4 split with kennedy in the middle as a swing vote then you know the court's twg to be tipped one way or the other. only four presidents in history have not nominated a candidate to the supreme court. two of those died and their immediate successors nominated somebody. jimmy carter is the most recent president not to. you can be pretty certain that the next president will get to nominate somebody and given that four justices will be in their 80s during the next administration's four year term i think the likelihood is even high are. and the opportunity to...

apolitical element of the justices job. but we have so many years of press accidents in the doctrine of sare decisis an old common law doctrine and now you have precedence on top of the constitution. and unless you can get underneath all those precedents, i don't know you can get to the apolitical constitution. >> gabe is suggesting term limits and when you look at something like justice kennedy who has been around for 27 years, antonin scalia who has been around osimilar length of time, they get to cast a pretty long salad owe across political history. people didn't live that long in 1789. were we really planning to have a court like this, first gabe. >> no, i don't think the founders were. the average life expectancy at the time of the constitution was

have a chance to get a 6-3 majorities, given scalia's conservative voting record. >> do you believe that justices gain their requirements, unless they have to leave they keep an eye on the politics of it, who's in the senate and who's in the oval office? >> i definitely think that they do ray. and it's a shame really. there shouldn't be any partisan politics at the supreme court. we know that hasn't been the case there has been partisanship at the highest court but politics is supposed to be out of the court. what we see the court advocate for is a standard 18-year term for supreme court justices. so every two years there would be a new justice coming in, two times nine justices so that would be an 18-year term. so that's what we've been advocating for and that's what we hope the next individual

i can't blame the president for wanting to do it. i can't blame senators who are under pressure from special interest groups and these sorts of things to want to nominate somebody who is going to comport with their long term vision for america and fort for the courts. whether that is good structurally is another somewhere question. what i'm hearing gabe say about the age raises a good point about the constitution which provides no mechanism for a supreme court justice who is incapacitated in some way say in a vegetative state is in a coma or some sort of situation like that. there's no mechanism constitutionally for removing that person from office if that person can't voluntarily do so and i think the one thing is -- >> gabe quick response. >> a number of the justices i'm not going to name names here necessarily but a number of the justices we've heard stats or

don't think you want third parties deciding how to interpret our laws. >> this latest era that gabe defines really start with clarence thomas who was young was ideologic could be expected to be around for a long time on the bench? >> well, i do think it started about that time. and clearly it's become the trend. i think in the past 30 years or so justices started to search 20 years or so. president saying i think it's good thing to nominate somebody who's only he going to be on the court for a decade or so, the whole system is structured to incentivize someone who can stay on for a long time. i can't blame the president for