Recently retired justice, Stephen Breyer, expressed his support for both term and age limits for justices during a recent episode of Meet the Press. “I’ve said, and I think it’s true, I don’t think that’s harmful. If you had long terms, for example, they’d have to be long.”, Breyer noted.
Elaborating on why he supports such reforms, Breyer said, “Because I don’t think you want someone who’s appointed to the Supreme Court to be thinking about his next job.” He suggested that an 18 to 20-year term would be appropriate for Supreme Court Justices and commented that such an arrangement wouldn’t have been harmful but rather helpful in his case. It might have saved him from making difficult decisions regarding his retirement, he said.
Breyer went on to say that though he misses his time on the bench, he appreciates that others should also have a chance at these positions in the high court. “And, at some point, you’re just not going to be able to do it.”, Breyer added, expressing his stance favoring age limits for justices.
Generally, Supreme Court Justices serve for life, unless they choose to retire or are removed through impeachment. Breyer’s comments bring the discussion around term limits and age caps back into relevance, once again spurring debate among legal professionals and the general public.
For a more comprehensive understanding of Justice Breyer’s views, you can read the full discussion on Above the Law.