Opinion: In the wake of the recent Roe V. Wade draft opinion, we need a Supreme Court that reflects the people.
—————-
Millions of Americans are reeling, faced with the knowledge that the Supreme Court has failed to protect them and their rights. Some are skeptical about whether or not nine unelected individuals should be making the decisions that will affect us for the rest of our lives. The Supreme Court is an institution that will likely outlive us all, designed to uphold a document written hundreds of years ago. Meanwhile, half the justices appear old enough to have been alive during its inception. Supreme Court justices cling desperately to their positions, even as their cognitive abilities decline. Worse, they remain on the court long past the point where they have stopped representing the American people. Through the implementation of term limits, we could all benefit from younger, sharper justices who more accurately reflect us.
Once a Supreme Court justice is appointed, they retain that position for life, or until they choose to retire. In a world where justices are unbiased interpreters of the Constitution, this may not seem like much of a problem. As long as the President is able to appoint a qualified judge, there should be nothing wrong with said justice fulfilling that role until they feel they are no longer mentally equipped.
Opponents of term limits are wary of the idea because implementing term limits might lead to justices who run for office after their time on the Supreme Court. This is worrying for some because it could lead to polarization in the court and could lead to judges who make decisions based on their popularity. I’m sympathetic to this viewpoint, and God forbid our government start making popular decisions. As for polarization in the courts, it doesn’t take a political scientist to see that ship has sailed.
Like you and me, Supreme Court justices have political perspectives and motivations, bringing their biases with them in each decision that they make. If Supreme Court justices were apolitical, the political party of the justices would hardly be relevant in their decision making. But in the 2019-2020 term, the four most liberal Supreme Court Justices voted in a block around 70% of the time, whereas conservatives stuck together around 60% of the time. This is the reason why presidents pick Supreme Court Justices from their own political parties. It’s also why GOP senators worked to block President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016.
If Supreme Court justices are going to make political decisions, it’s best their politics reflect the current desires of the public. But this is impossible when some justices are serving upward of 30 years on the court. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest serving Supreme Court justice, a controversial figure even at the time he was sworn in under George H.W. Bush in 1991. Only 35% of the U.S. population was of voting age during the election of 1988, the remaining 65% having no say in the election. Yet, Justice Thomas is still one of the most powerful people in the country and, as one of the most conservative members of the Court, actively responsible for the predicted overturn of Roe V. Wade.
Term limits of 10 to 15 years would ensure the views of the Supreme Court justices would accurately reflect the American public. It might also remove the perverse incentive for judges to stay on the Supreme Court for as long as possible, even past the point where they are still qualified to serve. Democrats praised Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her refusal to step down and her valiant (but ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to remain on the Supreme Court until a Democratic President took office. While it may be admirable, I question whether this is something we should be incentivizing. At the ripe age of 87, was Ginsburg really in the position to hold one of the most powerful positions in the entire country? Others disapprove of Ginsburg’s decision to continue past the Obama presidency, arguing she should have retired while the Democrats had power. However, this brings up another concern of justice’s choosing the most strategic time to retire. This gives them, not the American people, the ability to decide what political party the next judge will be. This forever prevents the Supreme Court from meaningfully representing the views of the people and instead ensures the next pick will represent the views of the retiring justice.
Supreme Court justices are not apolitical and instead base their interpretations of the Constitution on beliefs that are often out of line with the American people. Equally as alarming, Supreme Court justices cling to their positions sometimes until their final breath, far past the age at which they are equipped for the position. We need to stop pretending the system is working. Instituting term limits is the least we can do to ensure a Supreme Court that is better equipped to serve the American people.
