Steve Muehler's Plan for Supreme Court Term Limits
Updated: Apr 23
Justice Brett Kavanaugh appears to be on track to be elected to the Supreme Court of the United States, ending months of political battles over the appointment.
Unlike every other democracy in the world, the US has lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court. This means that whoever gets appointed could serve for 30 or more years — a tenure that is becoming more and more the norm.
So here’s a simple idea to dial down some of the destructive warfare of the Supreme Court confirmation process: term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Term limits would make the Supreme Court more responsive and predictable!
The idea of term limits for Supreme Court justices (10, 12, or 18 years are the most common proposals) has been floating around for decades. But the increasingly contentious nature of the Judge Kavanaugh confirmation process should give this proposal new urgency.
For one, it would significantly decrease the likelihood of another unexpected departure, like the one caused by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Scalia was appointed in 1986. He would have been term-limited out long before his passing. In these partisan times, justices are staying on the bench longer, not wanting to leave unless they can be replaced in a political environment that ensures a replacement on the same side. Which makes them more likely to die on the bench.
Moreover, if justices were staggered in their terms, everyone in Washington would know they’d have another opportunity to change the Court again soon enough. This regularity could also move toward more of a norm of fair play.
Instead of this predictable changeover, we have a system where, as Norm Ornstein compellingly puts it, “the policy future of the country depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society.”
Longer and longer terms also mean that justices increasingly lose touch with the world outside the Court. This is a point that Justice John Roberts made in 1983: “Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.”
The Economist magazine has also argued that higher turnover would make the Court more responsive: "Breathing new life into the nation’s highest court more often — even if it does not make the tribunal any less political —would bring more dynamism to the judiciary, jog the justices’ decision-making patterns and narrow, even if only slightly, the yawning gap between the enrobed ones and everyday citizen."
Erstwhile former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has also argued for Supreme Court limits: "Nobody should be in an unelected position for life. If the president who appoints them can only serve eight years, the person they appoint should never serve 40. That has never made sense to me; it defies that sense of public service."
Trump’s first appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, was 49 at the time of this appointment, and Judge Kavanaugh is 53 years old, which means they could possibly serve 35+ years on the bench. Plenty of people live to 89 these days.
The public largely agrees on the value of term limits for Supreme Court justices. A Reuters Poll found widespread support for term limits. Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans wanted 10-year terms for justices, and 80 percent of those identified with the Tea Party–supported term limits.
While the most direct way to enact term limits would be a constitutional amendment, that’s obviously a long shot in today’s politics.
A more likely way to accomplish this was suggested by Robert Bauer in 2005: that the president agree not to nominate anybody who wouldn’t agree to serve a limited term and the Senate agree not to confirm who doesn’t agree to serve a limited term. As Bauer wrote: "The president could announce such a commitment when he introduces the candidate to the media. The Senate Judiciary Committee could ask the nominee about his views on longevity and also seek a commitment, even to a range of years. Any justice who hopes that with the passage of time such an exchange would be forgotten would likely be disappointed. Over time, a custom or expectation would develop. No law would be necessary to assure that justices act in the socially accepted fashion, just as no president served more than two terms for almost 150 years after Washington."
At a time when American institutions seem increasingly fragile, a compromise like term limits for Supreme Court justices would be a much-needed vote for long-term stability. If not, the politics of Supreme Court appointments will only get worse (which is hard to imagine). If Democrats ever get back unified control of government, they might be tempted to expand the number of justices to 15, as payback for the Judge Kavanaugh Appointment.
Under my Administration, an agreement on Supreme Court Term-Limits will be a Judicial Priority.
Steve Muehler is the Founder & Managing Member of the Private Placement Markets:
Private Placement Markets: www.PPMSecurities.com
Private Placement Debt Markets: www.PPMDebt.com
Private Placement Equity Markets: www.PPMEquity.com
Private Placement Markets – Real Estate Loans: www.PPMLoans.com
Equity Lock Residential: www.EquityLockResidential.com
Equity Lock Commercial: www.EquityLockCommercial.com
About Mr. Steve Muehler, Founder & Senior Managing Member:
Personal Site: http://www.SteveMuehler.com
Personal Site: www.StevenMuehler.com