by: Sahil Muthukrishnan
Culture Editor
The United States Supreme Court is the country’s highest judicial body and retains the power to check both the Executive and Legislative branches. With such a powerful entity, partisan bias and ethical compromise must be eliminated. One way the Founding Fathers attempted to ensure this was by giving justices lifetime terms. This was supposed to ensure that justices did not have to cater to any particular party or body to get reelected. While this worked for a time, it has backfired in recent years. The government should introduce term limits of eight to ten years for Supreme Court justices to ensure ethical conduct, prevent partisan or ideological bias, and curb extremism.
With justices’ positions enshrined for life, they demonstrate poor conduct regularly, as justice Clarence Thomas exemplifies. He has accepted extravagant gifts and amenities from a variety of conservative donors, like Harlan Crow. Additionally, he refused to recuse himself in a Jan. 6, 2021, case that involved his wife directly. Unfortunately, Thomas is not the only justice with such ethically ambiguous conduct; Justice Samuel Alito also received backlash for not recusing himself from Jan. 6, 2021, cases after flying flags associated with the insurrection at his residence. While at one time, the precedent of recusing oneself when ethically compromised was enough to keep the court accountable, it is clear that this is not sufficient to ensure a fair judicial branch.
The lack of term limits also breeds extremism and partisan bias. With nine justices on the court, an odd number, and a majority rule system, each party only needs five as ideological representatives to achieve their goals. This would function smoothly if those stand-ins were more temporary, but with our system, once a justice is sworn in, they serve for life. This encourages whichever party is in power at the time of a justice’s death to hastily swear in a candidate who aligns with their ideological compass. The surrogate chosen is often extreme in either direction to ensure that either party will have a reliable vote for what is often decades. This resulted in our current court having a 6-3 conservative majority, making it one of the most ideologically polarized courts in history. A Gallup poll found that 43% of Americans feel the court is “too conservative,” with 69% of participants favoring term limits in a study from the Annenberg Public Policy Center. With such a powerful body, moderation is the best way to ensure fair rulings.
We need a better way of minimizing instances of misconduct, and term limits would do just that. Justices do not need to run for election, so they do not have to cater to any particular party, and dedicated terms would continue that objectivity. If the government implemented eight to ten years for each justice, not only would the window for misconduct shrink, but there would be less pressure for an administration to insert the most extreme ideologue they can find to extend their side’s power for generations. With no possibility of extending their service, justices would retain their own will to make decisions, not appealing to any particular community or special interest group for funding or votes.
In a time when the nation continues to be deeply divided, we need a fair, bipartisan, and rational Supreme Court. Introducing term limits for justices is the best solution to achieving these goals.
(Sources: Alliance for Justice, Gallup, University of Pennsylvania)