TERM LIMITS ARE THE TALK OF THE TOWN | The Quiet Fight Over Trump’s Tariffs | How SCOTUS Rulings Can Add Up

June 5, 2019

From the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidate BETO O’ROURKE says he wants to limit terms for members of Congress, and for Supreme Court justices. He served as co-chairman of the Term Limits Caucus while he was a member of Congress, and now O’Rourke says he would support a constitutional amendment limiting House members to six terms and senators to two terms, while creating a single 18-year term for the Supreme Court — after which justices would be allowed to serve on federal courts of appeals.

In an op-ed for Bloomberg Law, Tyler Cooper with Fix the Court explains why term limits are the way to go when it comes to de-politicizing the Supreme Court. He argues, “The founders knowingly circumscribed only minimal guidance for the third branch, allowing it to be adjusted to fit the needs of the nation (cf., initially omitting judicial review). A time when the high court’s legitimacy is questioned, as it is now, is the time to make an adjustment. Nine justices, appointed by the president, who remain federal jurists after a statutorily fixed term, and whose power is limited by that term, seems to be a solution that checks all the boxes—including the constitutional one.”

“The Trump administration has been asking the Supreme Court since January 2018 to hear its case for ending the Obama-era program that protects undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. It’s still waiting.” That’s Richard Wolf with USA Today reporting on the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to deny the Justice Department’s request for “swift action” on DACA.

Marcia Coyle with The National Law Journal reports on the quiet fight over PRESIDENT TRUMP’S trade tariffs that just landed at the Supreme Court. A petition now with the high court claims a provision that allows a president to impose “national security” steel and aluminum tariffs is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ powers.

In an op-ed in The Hill, Alan Brownstein argues some Supreme Court rulings are detracting from the public’s perception of the high court and its role in American life. He points to the issue of partisan gerrymandering as an example of why, as he says, “Justices need to focus not only on these cases in isolation, but on the cumulative consequences of the court’s decisions in recent years on public confidence in American democracy.”