The United States Supreme Court is a problematic institution. With Congress being ineffective at pushing political policy, politicians and justices have been looking to maximize the Court's ability to legislate. This increased focus on the Court as a powerful legislative body has made it very political and polarized.
Today, the court currently operates within the framework of legal realism rather than the legal formalism it previously adhered to, which increases the Court's inherent politicization.
Today, the major issue is that the highest court in the land is unfair and unjust politically, when considering the Court’s increased involvement in politics. The Court was not built for its situation today as a legislative body.
It is unjust for the Court to create policy, while not representing the ideological split of the United States.
With the Court of today, there must be a more effective and fair way for the people of the United States to fairly influence the Court’s balance. If the Court is moving towards a more partisan and political nature, the way influence is achieved on the Court must be fair. There must be a predictable way for Supreme Court justices to be appointed.
To solve these issues, no need to look further than the 18-year term limit for justices, which President Biden has recently advocated for.
This plan will install an 18-year term limit of active service for justices appointed to the Supreme Court. The term limit will guarantee that each president will appoint two justices per presidential term. These justices will be appointed in the first and third years of a presidential term.
The 18-year term limit plan will solve the unfairness and injustice of the Court by solving two smaller issues.
I. Random Appointment
Appointments to the Court are random. This is no surprise considering that the only way to free a spot on the Court is for someone to die or vacate their seat. There are no set terms or elections to give predictable vacancies on the Court.
The randomness of appointments has only been a source for politicization of the Court. A president appointing a Supreme Court justice is the easiest way to have an ideological influence on a nation. Once these justices are appointed, if they have a majority, there is no way to stop their ideological agenda. Even without majority support, dissenting opinions still have a big impact on the Court.
Therefore, when these appointment opportunities arrive, politicians have only one mindset: DO NOT WASTE THE OPPORTUNITY.
Whether it is maximizing your party’s balance on the Court or preventing the other party, you cannot waste a chance at increasing your party and ideological influence on the Court, as you may never get such a ripe opportunity again. Recently there have been examples of these actions.
Politicians have tried influencing justices to take strategic retirements, to avoid a scenario similar to Justice Ginsburg. This has been seen with the aforementioned Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor more recently, and a possible plan for the Republican party with President Trump’s term.
Politicians have also tried stealing opponent party appointments to secure for themselves, as seen with President Obama's failed Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland and the conflicting Justice Barrett nomination.
With an 18-year term limit for justices, each presidential term will have two justice appointments to the Court. No president will have unfair influence or unequal nominations for the Court. This will limit the gamesmanship, politicization, and polarization surrounding the Court and its nominations.
If you want influence over the Supreme Court, it will be as simple as winning an election.
II. Lifetime Appointments
This point extends the first of random appointments. As Article III of the Constitution outlines, Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenure, when on good behavior. Despite the Federalists’ belief of it limiting political influence on the Court, as written in Federalist No. 78, it has now been a cause for politicians to maximize ideological influence. The best justice above all else must be young, to maximize their influence for decades.
With lifetime appointments, it should be additionally noted that there is also a risk of having incapable justices mentally and health-wise. There is nothing keeping justices from working until death.
This can be caused by a justice’s need for power, which shows the need for an 18-year term limit. Or the fear of losing ideological influence over the Court, if a justice were to step down under a president with an opposing ideology.
No matter the cause, lifetime appointments allow justices to serve until death. There is currently no way to limit the possibility of an incapable justice having influence over the Court and future precedent.
The 18-year term limit plan will solve a fundamental issue with the Supreme Court: its unfairness, politically, caused by random appointments and lifetime tenure. The highest Court in the land has become politicized and polarized. The ability to influence the Court has become critical.
Lifetime tenure has not been effective at keeping the Court from being a politicized entity, such as the Presidency and Congress. If the Court is going to be political and as legislative as it is, there must be a fair way to balance the ideology on the Court.
The Supreme Court as a law legislating body cannot be insulated from the people. It cannot act on the people and expect it to not be acted on by the people. Therefore, no ideology should be dominant and have unrestrained power over the Court, when this ideological balance does not reflect the people of the United States.
An 18-year term limit for justices is a big step in building a better Supreme Court for the United States. One that is fairer, just, and representative for the people of the United States.
Comments ()