Hi everyone!
It is the view of many Americans that the Supreme Court of the United States is undergoing a crisis of legitimacy. Over the past year, SCOTUS has made a series of controversial decisions that the majority of constituents disagree with. There is the highly publicized Roe v. Wade overturn made via the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the federal protection of abortion was removed. A survey by Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The nation’s highest court also ruled in favor of public funding for religious schools and prayers on football fields, often deviating from decades or centuries of precedent. These rulings fall sharply along ideological lines: the majority of current Supreme Court justices lean conservative, and most recent decisions reflect this. This has led to a sharp split in SCOTUS, between left and right-leaning members. The minority ideology in the Court, including Sonia Sotomayor, has felt increasingly like their opinions do not matter, and often publish strong dissenting opinions following rulings. After the Court ruled in favor of a football coach fired for holding a prayer on the field - which some kids said they had felt pressured to join, so their rights to religious freedom may have been violated - Sotomayor said that "To the degree the court portrays petitioner Joseph Kennedy's prayers as private and quiet, it misconstrues the facts," questioning the legitimacy of the evidence the majority had based their opinion on. In this specific situation, the coach’s attorney claimed he was fired from his position over the prayer, while the district’s lawyers said he was put on paid leave. The court majority believed the latter argument, though the former was correct. This divide within the Court has not gone unnoticed by the media and public, which often publicize and criticize recent appointments. The Courts have, as of late, increasingly contrast with what citizens say: a fact that some say is a problem, since the constituents are who matter.
One solution proposed by some, and brought to Congress occasionally, is the addition of term limits. Each justice would be allowed to have 18 years in the Court, giving each President the opportunity to select two judges. This, proponents argue, would solve several of SCOTUS’s woes - it would reinstate legitimacy with the Court, since the justices would be more current and “democratic,” since they would better reflect public sentiments. They may de-politicize judicial appointments, which currently are covered by all sorts of media, making the selection process more politicized. About a year before President Barack Obama was to leave office, a seat opened in the Court, but the Republican-controlled Congress refused to consider any candidate, holding out until a new Republican president was instated. With term limits, judge selection would be routine, which may solve this problem. Another key factor to consider when pondering term limits is that many justices are very old; there is no retirement age for the Supreme Court, and many members stay until they pass away. This means that the court is significantly older than the general public, and therefore might be more “out of touch.” The 18-year terms could rectify this problem.
However, as with any idea in politics, there is plenty of dissent. Some who oppose it claim that term limits are unconstitutional, since the US’s founding documents say nothing about it. However, I’d like to point out that the opposite can be argued just as easily: there’s nothing mentioned that says we can’t have term limits. Another argument is that the term limits would not depoliticize the court, since justice selection would become another part of the presidential election. Others say it would make justices less likely to follow precedent; the Supreme Court often follows previous decisions, though this has eroded somewhat as of late.
One counterplan has been put forward as an alternative to term limits: the establishment of a retirement age, likely roughly 65, and a minimum age, perhaps 35 - 40. This would cut down on the amount of time any judge could spend in Court, and supporters say that this would accomplish the same as term limits. From my own analysis, the only issue with this plan is that I struggle to see how this is very different from term limits - or how it would decrease the politicization of the Court or reestablish legitimacy. Further development of this plan should be done before it is put forward on the national stage, though it makes intuitive sense - decreasing the number of judges who are very old and might not reflect public sentiments.
What do you think?