Democrats Unveil Proposal to ‘Reform’ Supreme Court

A group of House Democrats has decided it's time to impose term limits on U.S. Supreme Court justices.

While that's a good idea – justices currently serve what are effectively lifetime terms, which has tended to make each Court pick more high-stakes than it should, or was ever intended, to be – the Democrats are pushing the idea for the worst reasons. According to reporting in The Hill:

…[Georgia Rep. Hank] Johnson said the bench “is increasingly facing a legitimacy crisis.”
“Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who
lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on
the American people, who do not want it,” he said, referring to justices nominated by
former Presidents Trump and George W. Bush.

“Term limits are a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained
majority on the court,” he added.

That's exactly the opposite of what judicial term limits are supposed to do. But for politicians, every problem looks like a nail, so hammers are the first, last and only solution in their cupboard.

Earlier this year, a panel tasked with proposing reforms to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, suggested term limits for much different, and far sounder reasons:

Term limits emerged as the leading reform proposal, and the commissioners seemed
interested in fine-tuning how they will treat that subject in their report to the president, which is due this fall. Commissioner Rick Pildes, a professor at New York University School of Law, commended the idea of term limits, mentioning that it seemed like there is “a great deal of support behind” it and that, although practitioners seem resistant to many ideas, most think term limits are acceptable.

Much of the panel discussions spent a great deal of time on how term limits could be implemented. One consideration is the specific duration. An 18-year term limit would
mean a new justice every two years – or two appointments per presidency. Other
potential timeframes include 12 or 16 years. But as Vicki Jackson, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, explained, 12 years may be too short and could allow a two-term president to appoint six of the nine justices.

The commission members differed on whether an amendment or a simple legislation could impose such a limit. But in the bigger issue, there was broad agreement that term limits are an essential step toward making the courts more effective, and accountable:

Commissioner Michal Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice, said it has been “striking for us as members of the commission” how widespread the support for term limits is across the political spectrum. Solutions presented by the introduction of term limits include less gamesmanship by justices in choosing their replacements, more predictability in turnover and appointment, as well as less of an incentive to appoint younger justices to ensure a longer foothold on the bench. As Margaret Marshall, the former chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, put it, limited terms reduce the incentive to appoint younger judges for 40 to 50 years of service; however, she emphasized, “the linchpin is always a single lengthy tenure so that when a judge issues a decision, they do not find themselves out of a job the next go around.”

House Democrats would do their cause a world of good if they read the commission's
recommendations. It would save them from looking like cheap partisan hustlers, for starters. But even more, it would show them why broad support exists for the idea…no need for theatrics, hysteria or fear-mongering.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

READ NEXT: It's Over: SCOTUS Certifies Ruling Officially Ending Trump's ‘Remain in Mexico' Policy >>