Supreme Court Term Limits: Pros & Cons
As Justice Clarence Thomas’ many ethics scandals have surfaced in recent months, including allegations of negligent public accounting and extravagant trips funded by billionaires, some have started questioning the extent of the Supreme Court’s power in American ethics. Some public figures, like President Biden, have even considered imposing term limits on the members of the judiciary to reform the court and limit its power. This proposal is tricky; though nothing in the Constitution outright guarantees the justices lifetime appointments, Article III says that justices “shall hold their Offices during good behavior,” which is basically code for a lifetime job. Let’s take a look at the arguments for and against term limits.
Supporters argue that lifetime appointments polarize the confirmation process. When justices serve lifetime appointments, the stakes for appointing justices are extraordinarily high. As such, the Supreme Court has become a battleground for Democrats and Republicans to fight for power. Since nominations only come around when justices retire or pass away, the timing of the confirmation system is purely random. In other words, there is no regular cycle for presidents to nominate justices to the court. At times of high tension, judges can also strategically time their retirements with certain presidencies to ensure candidates with certain ideological dispositions fill their seats, transforming the Supreme Court into a site of power politics. With 18-year terms, one justice would be nominated during each term of Congress, and each president would nominate two Justices. Justices would no longer be incentivized to time their retirement to ensure an ideologically similar judge fills their seat.
Secondly, lifetime appointments result in an aging judiciary with too much political power. To put this in perspective, eight presidential elections have passed since the Court’s most senior Justice, Clarence Thomas, was nominated by President Bush in 1991. Keeping the same aging Justices on the high court for decades might overextend their political power. Since the Supreme Court has the unique power to interpret the Constitution against certain legislation and agency actions (a practice known as judicial supremacy), granting certain individuals this lifetime ability may be dangerous. If presidents and state judges face term limits, perhaps justices should too.
However, there are also compelling arguments against term limits. Some political thinkers argue that even though Biden’s proposal might seem convincing, changing the Supreme Court’s lifetime tenure could lead to unexpected practical circumstances. For starters, implementing 18-year caps would force the Senate into constant confirmation battles, disrupting its work and possibly leading to political exhaustion. Secondly, term limits might actually make justices more susceptible to the pressures of public opinion and political influence. For example, younger justices would have to think about their post-judicial prospects, leading them to act in ways that please certain employers or political groups. Lastly, changing lifetime tenure would require amending the Constitution, which calls for widespread Congressional and state support. For context, the last ratified amendment was the 27th Amendment in 1992. Considering decades-deep political divisions, this proposal seems pretty much impossible for the foreseeable future.
Clearly, the debate over term limits is rather complex. Justice Thomas’s recent appearances in the news highlight this tricky balance: while his ethics scandals show the importance of accountability, setting strict term limits might also make it harder for justices to stay impartial. Ultimately, this debate asks us to consider how we can ensure justices remain neutral arbiters of justice, while also holding them accountable to the people they serve.