The debate over term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices has permeated legal discourse for decades. Early in President Biden’s administration, the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court endorsed the idea, lending it greater visibility through the power of the presidential endorsement, or “bully pulpit.” Despite this newfound attention, the concept of term limits has long preceded the current partisan clashes associated with the Roberts Court(White House Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court).
The foundational argument for life tenure granted by the Framers aimed to insulate justices from political pressures, ensuring an independent judiciary. Lifetime salaries intended to attract qualified individuals and reduce corruption opportunities. However, the Framers also envisioned a more constrained judiciary, as evidenced by the Constitution’s text and the limited original jurisdiction accorded to the Supreme Court. Congress was given substantive control over the size and scope of the judiciary(Bloomberg Law).
Modern political realities, marked by polarization and legislative gridlock, have led recent presidents and their partisan allies to aggressively use Supreme Court appointments to secure long-term ideological victories. This practice has transformed the confirmation process into a highly partisan affair, leading to lifetime appointments that can result in significant ideological shifts over time.
The idea of an 18-year single term, as demonstrated by the Comptroller General of the United States, showcases that political insulation does not necessarily require lifetime tenure. With law firm stipends outpacing judicial salaries, the financial allure of lifetime income is no longer a significant draw for many potential nominees. An 18-year term could diversify the pool of qualified candidates, eliminating the age bias that currently limits older nominees’ chances and ensuring regular vacancies that reflect the country’s changing political landscape.
Implementing staggered 18-year terms would mean each president gets two appointments in a four-year term, smoothing out the current irregularity where some presidents fill multiple vacancies while others have none. This could reduce the partisan heat surrounding nominations and appointments, potentially leading justices to a better appreciation of their constitutionally intended limited roles.
Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute argues that term limits could be enacted without a constitutional amendment by reassigning justices after their 18-year tenure to lower courts or senior status. This approach maintains the principle of service during good behavior while addressing modern exigencies—a solution whose time, Ornstein believes, has arrived(Norman J. Ornstein).