Primer: Supreme Court Term Limits
The Supreme Court is suffering an unprecedented loss of public trust. Myriad scandals and polarizing rulings – including greater awareness of the conservative movement to revamp courts, Justice Clarence Thomas’ numerous ethics scandals, the end of affirmative action, and of course Dobbs, its repercussions and implications, and the leak that preceded it – have plummeted confidence in our nation’s highest court. This has helped reinvigorate the argument that justices should be subject to term limits, similar to limits imposed on the chief executive and governors across the country. The most common metric proposed is 18 years, and this is the basis on which our debate will be formed. Political Union’s Week 5 debate will cover the resolution:
The Supreme Court should be subject to term limits.
The pro argument might start by pointing out how SCOTUS is truly unique in how it empowers justices. All but one state supreme court has fixed term limits or mandatory retirement, as do constitutional courts in every other major democracy in the world. Further, the argument for maintaining the vision of the Founders is weak: the definition of lifetime appointment is wildly different now than it was when the Constitution was first ratified. Lifetime expectancy is much higher, but the average age at which a justice is appointed has remained roughly the same. Confirmation hearings have also become increasingly political and divisive - look no further than the Kavanaugh proceedings - because of their outsized importance. This undermines the legitimacy of the Court as an apolitical body. Senator Mitch McConell’s blocking of former President Barack Obama’s nominee for seven months only exacerbated this issue. Limiting terms would also indirectly empower the people because it would mean more presidents would be able to make appointments, and therefore the public can hold the Court more accountable. The strength of an 18 year model, too, is that it can be designed so that each presidential term would appoint 2 new justices.
The con argument centers around the stability of the Court. Precedence, or stare decisis, is an important and coveted feature of our judicial system, and consistency in the structure of the court aids this mission. Constant ideological changes to the court could disrupt the system with constant change in doctrine. It’s also important to note why lifetime appointments were originally ratified: it insulates justices from political influence and combats corruption. Term limits could offer both economic and political incentives for justices to shape their opinions in ways that could land them better opportunities after leaving the bench. There is a reason we have maintained this Constitutional provision since ratification, so we should be careful not to overreact to recent events. Lastly, many modern presidents have already appointed multiple justices, so this change might be unnecessary in the first place.
Come join us for the debate on Monday at 7pm in Scott Hall 201!
"US Supreme Court" by dbking is licensed under CC BY 2.0.