Article three of the United States Constitution details the nation’s court system, chiefly creating the Supreme Court, the highest judicial voice of the U.S. The legal document outlines that the president should appoint Supreme Court justices and the Senate needs to provide “advice and consent.” So long as the judges’ actions do not merit impeachment, these authorities may serve for life. The U.S. should amend these effectively unlimited terms of service, as they negate the court’s integrity.
The U.S.’s highest court divides its work among nine judges, each bringing unique outlooks and life experiences to the bench. Currently, the notable nine include justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Samuel Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Former President Donald Trump nominated a third of the court, creating a 6-3 conservative majority.
Since the former president’s nominations, the court has ruled upon a plethora of deeply controversial topics. In 2022, it infamously overturned Roe V. Wade, the 1973 decision protecting women’s right to choose, but citizens worry about other recent rulings as well. In Trump v. United States, the court ruled to protect presidential immunity on criminal activity in office. Although the language the court used in its ruling remained vague, it sent a clear message: the court’s current justices serve the will of their nominator, fearless for their reputations and their job security.
“I think that just like every official government office has a term limit, I believe that Supreme judges should have a certain amount of time that they are allowed to serve on the bench. I haven’t liked the Supreme Court’s latest decisions. I am a firm believer that a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body and that no one has the right to judge. Another decision I am against is the decision that the president has immunity from criminal prosecution for anything they do while in office,” junior Caitlin Heeralal said.
As a result of the court’s provocative decisions, the public criticizes its foundations. These Constitutional challengers argue that Supreme Court justices should serve for limited amounts of time without the option to return to the high office. Proponents support their case pointing to the effective presence of judicial term limits in other countries, risk of a doddery judge overstaying his or her capacity and a loss of touch between the court and the citizens it affects.
Constitutional originalists argue against such an amendment, pointing out an intense increase in executive power and rising instability in the nation’s conscience. They offer an alternative solution to the court’s potential abuse of power, proposing a firm code of conduct for justices. With this plan, the public could expect two things: judges to consistently excuse themselves from cases they may feel biased in and rules on the judge’s behavior that congress could readily impeach for breaking. While these guidelines appear nonpartisan and less delicate than term limits, they risk providing a Congress dominated by one party with the ability to remove any judges with “inconvenient” political opinions.
In the world’s most notable democracies, such as Australia, the United Kingdom and Mexico, justices serve until they reach a certain age, typically around 70, or for an extensive and non-renewable term. Although these nations also face political disputes, even within their court systems, the limited time a justice can serve assures the public that fresh eyes will soon observe and potentially rule on the topics that citizens care about. In comparison to these policies, America’s supreme court appears antiquated.
The U.S. government’s lack of age limits increases its controversy beyond the court recently, with criticism toward President Joe Biden’s age and health. Voters expressed concern over the president’s fitness for a second term. This concern extends to the supreme court, with worries over an older justice staying in his or her office longer than their mental capacity allows. Without an insured end to their leadership, Supreme Court justices can hoard power they can not wield, grinding down the court’s effectiveness.
Finally, through the long service justices pay to the court, they can lose touch with Americans and their own past experiences. Justice Thomas provides an exceptional example of this disconnect through his reputation for extreme conservatism and monetary dishonesty. However, the potential power of one administration to appoint justices, overwhelming the powers of the presidents that surround it, provides a lasting impact on the court. An inordinate amount of influence on the court’s long term decisions can fall on a four year period of America’s history. This occurred with President Trump’s three nominations in four years, far outpacing President Obama’s two justices in eight years or President Biden’s one in almost four years.
“I think the main criticism for the way that we currently do things is the idea that there’s very little constraint on the power of the Supreme Court in the way that there is a discernible constraint on the executive branch and the legislative branch. We can look at our congressmen and women… and say ‘They serve for this amount of time, and if I don’t like them, I have the opportunity to remove them at this point.’ The only way to remove a supreme court justice is a process of impeachment which almost never happens, so impeachment, death or resignation; those are our options,” AP Comparative Government teacher Carolyn Galloway said.
