Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?

“The 18-year term proposal developed by legal scholars would give each four-year presidential term two predictable appointments. This prevents any single administration from permanently reshaping the Court due to the luck of when justices retire or die, and it eliminates the strategic retirement game that current incentives produce.”

“Germany, the UK, Canada, France, and every other peer democracy rotate their highest court judges. None has seen judicial independence erode as a result. The American lifetime-tenure model is the global outlier. Its defenders cite tradition, but tradition is not the same as wisdom — and this tradition produces a broken confirmation process.”

“The Constitution grants federal judges life tenure precisely to insulate them from political pressure. A justice who knows they will return to private life in 18 years has more incentive to please future employers or their appointing party. Lifetime tenure is the structural price of genuine independence from political fashion, and its cost is the current confirmation circus, not judicial corruption.”

“Term limits require a constitutional amendment: two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states. This has not been achieved on any politically divisive question in modern American history. The reform is practically unattainable, which means the debate is primarily about delegitimizing the current Court, not improving governance.”