Senators propose constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court justices’ terms, sparking debate on judicial independence and political influence.
At a Glance
- Senators Welch and Manchin propose 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices
- Amendment aims to reduce political gamesmanship and restore public trust
- Proposal faces significant hurdles, including opposition from some lawmakers
- Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds majority in Congress and state ratification
- Public opinion shows majority support for Supreme Court term limits
Constitutional Amendment Proposed for Supreme Court Term Limits
In a bold move that challenges the longstanding tradition of lifetime appointments, Senators Peter Welch and Joe Manchin have introduced a constitutional amendment to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. This proposal, aimed at depoliticizing the judicial appointment process and restoring public confidence, has ignited a fierce debate about the future of America’s highest court.
The proposed amendment would establish a structured system for new justice appointments every two years, maintaining the current nine-justice panel. This change comes at a time when public trust in the Supreme Court has hit rock bottom, with only 16% of Americans expressing strong confidence in the institution.
The Case for Term Limits
Supporters of the amendment argue that it would bring much-needed reform to a system that has become increasingly politicized. Senator Welch emphasized what he sees as the urgency of the situation, stating, “Taking action to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is a commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans.”
The proposal has garnered support from former federal judges and legal scholars who see it as a necessary step to modernize the judicial system. The United States is an outlier among democracies in granting lifetime appointments to its highest court justices.
Public Opinion and Political Hurdles
Public sentiment appears to favor reform, with a Newsweek poll showing 58% of eligible voters supporting term limits for justices. However, the path to implementing such a change is fraught with challenges. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states—a high bar that has rarely been cleared in American history.
Opposition to the proposal is already emerging, with some lawmakers viewing it as an attempt to influence the court’s ideological direction. Senator Lindsey Graham has expressed skepticism, suggesting that such measures may be driven by a desire to make the court more liberal rather than genuine reform.
Alternative Approaches and Broader Reform Efforts
While the constitutional amendment route is being pursued, other lawmakers are exploring alternative methods to achieve similar goals. Senator Elizabeth Warren has suggested that term limits and court expansion could potentially be achieved through legislative action without amending the Constitution. This highlights the ongoing debate about the most effective and feasible ways to reform the Supreme Court.
The proposed amendment is part of a broader push for judicial reform, which includes calls for an enforceable ethics code and eliminating broad immunity for top officials. President Biden has also voiced support for Supreme Court reform, aligning with the general direction of these proposals.
The Road Ahead
As this constitutional amendment makes its way through the legislative process, it’s clear that the debate over Supreme Court reform is far from over. The proposal has reignited discussions about the role of the judiciary in American democracy and the balance between judicial independence and accountability.
