Posted on 12/09/2024 9:25:54 PM PST by Red Badger
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (I) and Vermont Sen. Peter Welch (D) have introduced a resolution to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, which would require some turnover on the high court every two years.
Specifically, their resolution calls for a constitutional amendment to institute nonrenewable 18-year terms for new Supreme Court justices, with a new term starting every two years.
It would implement a transition period during which 18-year terms would begin every two years regardless of when a current justice leaves the bench, according to an explanation issued by the senators’ offices.
When a current justice retires, the newly appointed justice would serve out the remainder of the next 18-year term.
It would keep the total number of justices at nine.
The senators pointed out that public confidence in the Supreme Court has plummeted in recent years, as only 16 percent of Americans said they had a “great deal of confidence” in it after the 2024 term.
An Annenberg Public Policy Center survey of 1,600 U.S. adults conducted in May found that 68 percent of Americans support setting term limits for justices and 71 percent support requiring justices to retire at a certain age.
A variety of former federal judges and legal scholars support Manchin’s and Welch’s proposal.
Diane P. Wood, a retired U.S. Circuit judge for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out that only one state allows judges to serve life tenures without restriction and that most “apex courts around the world” have implemented term limits.
“It is time for the United States to make this change to the federal judiciary. The proposed joint resolution does so in a manner consistent with our constitutional design,” Wood said.
Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School said the senators’ proposal “offers a non-partisan fix to an appointment process that our political parties have broken in ways the Framers could not anticipate,” referring to the “politicization of the judiciary.”
“The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land,” Manchin, who is retiring at the end of the year, said in a statement.
“Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate,” he said.
Welch, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the measure is intended “to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful court.”
“Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans,” he said.
The proposed amendment would not alter the tenure of sitting justices, who would continue to serve as long as they desire or until incapacitation.
It would increase gamemanship, not decrease it as judges seek to rule in ways that can’t be overturned by existing judges.
The public has a low opinion (they say) of the Supreme Court due to liberal demagoguery. And lefty judicial activism has harmed lower courts
Create a problem and fix it in an image of their own making. Right out of the democrat play book
It's not the Supreme Court that's "broken," it's the Senate that's broken. They're just blaming it on the Supreme Court.
If the 17th amendment were to be repealed instead, the Senators would get their confirmation orders from their respective state legislatures, and the Supreme Court would be based on the sentiments of the several states instead of the party that's currently in power.
-PJ
If the same applied to the Senate and House then such a bill might at least be worthy of consideration but not without.
They should make it apply for all Federal judges, not just the Supreme Court............
I can support this, but have the expirations start on the first of July of the first odd year after ratification & have it be seniority-based. This gives Justice Thomas until at least 2035 to step down and then 2037, 2039, 2041, and 2043 for the rest of the pre-Trump picks & then 2045, 2047, 2049, and 2051 for the rest. It should help remove partisanship from implementing it it goes into effect a decade after ratification.
As written, the current justices would serve until they retire or die or become otherwise incapacitated................
ZERO∞
Most likely..................
NOPE!
“If the 17th amendment were to be repealed instead, the Senators would get their confirmation orders from their respective state legislatures, and the Supreme Court would be based on the sentiments of the several states instead of the party that’s currently in power.
-PJ. “
I completely agree.
The 17th in many ways made us half a democracy.
Actually, it’s about half of 1/3.LOL
“It would keep the total number of justices at nine.”
This would be enough for me to support it - otherwise the Democrats will PACK THE COURTS at their first chance, something that only became a threat after permitted Universal Voting. So limiting the Justices at least countermeasures that mistake.
how bout term limits for the house and senate???
How about House and Senate first?
Amen to that!
Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court for over 33 years. He should have been named Chief Justice.
Justices by time in office:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices_by_time_in_office
good...now do senators, then representatives...
I suppose one could also say, “ A variety of former federal judges and legal scholars do not support Manchin’s and Welch’s proposal.”
They will have to amend the constitution. That’s not happening.
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.