Establishing Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: A Persuasive Argument for Constitutional Amendment

The debate over term limits for Supreme Court justices has gained significant traction in recent years, particularly following the reflections on the fitness and impact of elderly justices on the bench, such as Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. This article explores the key arguments in favor of a constitutional amendment to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and analyzes the potential implications for judicial independence, ethical governance, and the responsiveness of the judiciary to public opinion.

The Urgency of Addressing Age-Related Concerns

One of the most compelling arguments for term limits is rooted in the concerns surrounding the health, age, and wisdom of aging judges, especially those who are in their eighties. Prior to Joe Biden’s decision to forego a second term in 2024, the central argument against running for re-election was his age. If an 81-year-old feels too old to govern effectively, why shouldn't the same concern apply to Supreme Court justices who are equally as influential in shaping American life through their rulings?

Liberals' Frustration with Judicial Intransigence

Liberals have long been frustrated with the Supreme Court’s use of the Constitution as a tool to stifle progressive reforms and limit the powers of the elected branches of government. The conservative tilt of recent Supreme Court appointments has led to decisions steeped in traditionalist ideologies that often run counter to modern societal values and needs. The ongoing debates over issues such as abortion, LGBTQ rights, and climate change highlight the tension between the Court’s actions and the public's desire for more progressive policymaking.

The Foundations of Judicial Independence and Term Limits

The fear among some liberals is that the Court’s independence would be compromised by term limits, arguing that such limits could lead to a politicization of the judiciary. However, this concern seems to conflate the need for accountability with the erosion of judicial independence. The inherent inflexibility and unaccountability of life-long appointments to the bench are already problems. Term limits could ensure that justices are always responsive to the spirit of the Constitution and the evolving values of society.

A Constitutional Amendment to Fix the Court

A constitutional amendment to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices could address these concerns by ensuring that justices remain relevant and accountable to the public. The proposed amendment would limit justices to serving no more than two seven-year terms, during which they would face the same restrictions and requirements on accepting and reporting gifts and income as judges of inferior courts. Additionally, the President would only be allowed to appoint no more than two justices during any four-year term.

Upon ratification, the current sitting justices would resign in order of seniority, with two per presidential term until no members of the Supreme Court have more than fourteen years of service. This measure would ensure a steady turnover of justices and maintain the necessary balance between continuity and new perspectives.

Alternative Solutions to Constitutional Amendments

While a constitutional amendment might be the most robust solution to address these issues, there are pragmatic alternatives. A Democratic-controlled Congress could enact both a statutory enforceable ethics code and a constitutional term limit. This dual approach would subject justices to immediate ethical standards and periodic accountability, while still maintaining the checks and balances of the Constitution.

It remains to be seen whether a constitutional amendment is truly necessary, but with the current climate of political polarization and public disillusionment with the judiciary, the argument for meaningful reform is compelling. The days of a wholly unaccountable judiciary are not sustainable, and term limits could provide a crucial safety net for ensuring the enduring relevance and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the case for term limits on Supreme Court justices is compelling. Addressing age-related concerns, curbing judicial intransigence, and preserving judicial integrity are all critical aspects of ensuring that the judiciary remains faithful to the Constitution and responsive to the needs of a changing society. A constitutional amendment may be the most decisive step towards realizing these goals, but the alternatives of ethical codes and statutory term limits also offer viable paths towards reform.