Disclaimer: the sources used in this story are primarily progressive, left-leaning sources.
Picture this: a practically unassailable throne, defying the changing modernity of our times and undermining the democratic process, held for life. Within the heart of American politics, the Supreme Court of the United States, lies such a broken system that has grown to no longer safeguard justice. As such, it is imperative that terms of office limits be put in place to limit the exceedingly extensive power of the Supreme Court.
The Constitution’s framers outlined within Article III that Supreme Court justices would hold terms for life. Almost every other political position, including those within the House of Representatives and Senate, have terms of office limits between two and six years.
Yet there was a legitimate reason for this decision. Influenced by Montesquieu, who emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, the framers aimed to shield the judiciary from the political pressures exerted by the executive and legislative branches, according to the Center for American Progress. The framers believed that political parties or factions could influence the decisions of the court, when in theory, they should be based purely on constitutionality.
However, today’s Supreme Court is highly politicized and extremely polarized along partisan lines, according to Stanford Law School.
Today, term length limits can also promote diversity and representation of various demographics in the United States. Regular turnovers allow for more opportunities to appoint justices from diverse backgrounds, including racial, ethnic, gender, and professional heterogeneity, according to the American Constitution Society. Furthermore, terms of office limits may offer greater opportunities for demographic representation. With justices serving well into old age, evolving social attitudes and technologization may not be as well reflected in the Court.
We call for the support of an 18-year term and one term limit, as proposed by California Senator Alex Padilla and the Brennan Center for Justice. This limitation allows for regularized appointments, so every president would have an equal impact on the Court, improving the “democratic link” between public opinion and the judiciary.
Though some may argue that installing terms of office limits is unconstitutional, opinion pieces from USA Today, Bloomberg Law and CNN show that there are multiple workarounds. The most common one maintains that Article III of the Constitution, which grants Supreme Court justices their life terms, does not specify life tenure. Rather, justices may “hold their offices during good behavior,” a vague terminology that does not directly define the length of an office.
Regardless of one’s political standing, the Supreme Court of the United States is by large a flawed facet of our government. With nine individuals holding incredible power over all walks of American society, it is vital that the makeup of the court be continuously changed to better reflect an evolving populace.
