Posted on 10/01/2026 1:21:47 PM PDT by Red Badger
Democratic efforts to revamp the Supreme Court gained momentum Thursday as an influential center-left think tank released a plan to limit justices’ terms and misconduct.
Third Way’s proposal, shared first with POLITICO, highlights growing unity across the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party for significant changes to the high court as Americans’ trust in the institution hovers at historic lows.
The group says it also wants to inject ideas to overhaul the court — including legislation to set an 18-year term limit and an enforceable ethics code — into the party’s conversations leading up to the 2028 presidential race.
“This is one of those things that we think can and should be a part of the 2028 discussion, and those folks who are running should be asked about whether they would champion Supreme Court reform,” Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at Third Way, said in an interview.
Key Democratic groups have increasingly been coalescing around ideas to overhaul the court’s structure and policing in light of accusations of growing partisanship and corruption among justices. In June, a number of key Democratic House caucus leaders, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released their own resolution calling for term limits for justices and a code of ethics.
“We think that the center left has been remiss in not being forward enough on reform proposals that would make our system work better for people, which is why some folks have gone to the further left,” Erickson said.
Third Way cited public opinion polling from both the Brennan Center for Justice and FOX News indicating more than 70% of respondents favored term limits for justices. An 18-year cycle would ensure the appointment of two justices every presidential term.
The group also wants legislation to hold justices accountable for ethics violations. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said last month he supports “dramatic reform” on the Supreme Court starting with an ethics code so justices don’t act “above the law.”
The court in 2023 adopted its own formal ethics code for the first time in history, but that policy largely lacks some of the teeth that advocates have proposed.
One idea supported by some Democrats that Third Way is not endorsing: upping the number of justices on the bench. Erickson said that idea seems more like “a mutually assured destruction path,” as parties could go back and forth adding more justices.
The path forward for any court-focused legislation in Congress in the near future, however, is very slim without majorities in both chambers and control of the White House — something Third Way acknowledged.
Still, the group’s recommendations are meant “to show that the center left can also be bold and be addressing systemic problems to appeal to voters and their level of anxiety and anger about what’s happening right now,” Erickson said.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The Third Way was Bill an Hillary’s go to movement - its is essential a modernized version of communism.
When "the way things are" is working for them making any changes would be immoral.
For the left it is very straightforward:
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”
And just who will be the decider on what’s ethical? 🤔
Third way is juzt the hegekian dialectic with a different title
That said congress could probably do some actual work and define the high crimes and misdemeanors and vague terms like “in good standing” and vague negative disqualifying terms, and make them explicit with concrete examples, and make them actionable offenses, because theyd catch far more democrat justices and judges as well as a number of rino conservatives
As a thought experiment —
If the GOP holds the House and Senate after the mid-terms, would the Democrats have a big problem if the GOP majority were to tackle this problem by packing the court, imposing ethics rules with teeth and other measures that would reshape the court? Would that be acceptable? Or would the Democrats be horrified and would they insist that these things would only be a good idea if enacted by a Democrat majority?
They’re always tried to rip apart the fabric of this country.
My God, as if packing the court with another 6 liberal kooks isn’t enough, they now want term limits and an “enforceable ethics code.” These people are absolutely, utterly insane. They are seeing their power slipping away at the ballot box due to taking away their fraud and USAID money pipeline, and now want to create a huge, heavy, waffle tread stomping boot for our necks for all eternity.
Will people EVER wake up to what they are doing?
We have a two-front war against the islamists and commies.
if-—then : 6 years district, 12 years appeals + for district a basic literacy test
What about term limits for Congress?
So we need a SUPER DUPER SUPREME Supreme Court to regulate the Supremes who are currently the final arbiters of what is the law. Got it.
But what would the regulating committee be called that would be above the SUPER DUPER SUPREME Supreme Court?
Jeffries has the IQ of a wet toadstool.
once we get into term limits things, a lot of good could come out of it
Let’s have Congress formally define Natural Born Citizen — born on US soil to two parents, both of whom are US citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Codify that.
Then declare that only NBCs may serve as federal judges or run for federal office.
How about an IQ test for Congressmen. Jeffries would flunk with a 65 score.
“And just who will be the decider on what’s ethical? 🤔”
General Dynamics hired an “Ethics” manager. His goals and objectives were to fire five people by the end of the year for “ethics” violations. I was the person up for firing, and he had no opportunity to lie, as his co-manager who would know the G&O’s was right there. I got to cross examine him and asked how a blanket G&O with no definitions and a hard number on people to be found in violation could be ethical. He turned very red and sputtered a word salad but could not respond. “Ethics” is a very slippery and mostly subjective thing. I’d say if you can’t point to a hard breach of a rule then no determination of “ethics” can be valid. (I didn’t get fired because it came down to a urination contest on who had the actual right to fire someone, the HR manager or the new “ethics” manager. The HR guy had hard rules and more urine.)
“Centrist”?
Center of what?
First pass term limits for congress, after that I will consider term length for SCOTUS.
An “Enforceable Ethics Code” means vote the way the Democrats tell them to, or they are removed from the court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.