WE TALKIN’ TERMS | House Democrats Prepare Bill Limiting Justice Terms To 18 Years
September 25, 2020
AN END TO LIFE TENURE
|Andrew Chung with Reuters reports House Democrats are set to introduce a bill next week that would limit the tenure of Supreme Court justices to 18 years. The proposal would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term. Chung writes, “Term limits for high court justices have for years had support from a number of legal scholars on both the right and the left. Several polls in recent years have also shown large majorities of the American public support term limits.” GABE ROTH with Fix the Court who has long advocated for 18-year term limits says the bill is the first to try and set term limits by statute.
TOP-ED
|Speaking of GABE ROTH, he wrote an op-ed for USA Today explaining that we can end life tenure at SCOTUS without amending the Constitution. “Remember, judicial life tenure is not handed down by decree from on high. It exists in the United States because a series of 18th century English monarchs, on this and the other side of the Atlantic, were axing jurists whose decisions they objected to. That’s it. Nearly every country whose Constitution was written in the 20th century — not to mention 49 of the 50 U.S. states — requires its top jurists to step down after a certain number of years or upon reaching a certain age. SCOTUS is an outlier.” Roth notes that while there’s not much Democrats can do to stop Republicans from filling RUTH BADER GINSBURG’S seat, they can “join with their conservative colleagues who have long embraced the concept of term limits and ensure that never again will a superannuated bench determine the direction of our country.”
FINALLY FIXING THE COURT
|The first-ever measure to end life tenure at SCOTUS by statute will be introduced on Tuesday. It would limit future justices to a nonrenewable 18-year term that would be staggered so that two new justices would get appointed each presidential term. Fix the Court explains that it would also create the status of “senior justice” for current retired justices and for future justices who complete their terms at SCOTUS. Roth said in a statement released today, “For the first time in U.S. history, statutory language will be introduced to accomplish what court-watchers have been saying for ages: on Supreme Court appointments, we must do better. A standard appointment process, where future justices serve for a reasonable amount of time, is that better way – and one the majority of the country already supports.”
ENDING THE SCOTUS CRISES
|Juliegrace Brufke with The Hill reports REP. RO KHANNA is spearheading efforts behind the bill to impose term limits on SCOTUS. Khanna tweeted today, “We can’t face a national crisis every time there’s a SCOTUS vacancy. I’m introducing a bill to impose 18yr term limits on future Justices. Long enough to influence judicial trends but not so entrenched.”
AN UNHEALTHY DEMOCRACY
|The Economist has endorsed term limits, arguing such a policy would be the best way to make Supreme Court justices less, well, notorious. “At the time of her death, RUTH BADER GINSBURG Featured on more than 3,000 pieces of memorabilia which were for sale on Amazon.com. Fans of “Notorious rbg” could buy earrings, mugs, babygrows, fitness manuals and Christmas decorations (“Merry Resistmas!”), all bearing her face. The number and variety of these tributes suggest two things. First, that Justice Ginsburg was an extraordinary woman with an extraordinary place in American culture (see article). Second, that something has gone wrong with America’s system of checks and balances. The United States is the only democracy in the world where judges enjoy such celebrity, or where their medical updates are a topic of national importance. This fascination is not healthy.”
ABC EASY AS 123?
|Meanwhile, the Republicans are full steam ahead in their efforts to quickly put a conservative justice on the court before the election. CNN reports multiple sources are saying PRESIDENT TRUMP will choose AMY CONEY BARRETT as RBG’s replacement. “All sources cautioned that until it is announced by the President, there is always the possibility that Trump makes a last-minute change but the expectation is Barrett is the choice. He is scheduled to make the announcement on Saturday afternoon.”
POLLS DU JOUR
|But as FiveThirtyEight points out, most Americans don’t want JUSTICE GINSBURG’S seat filled until after the election. FiveThirtyEight has identified 12 polls that reflect an average of 52 percent of respondents saying Trump and Senate Republicans should wait, while only 39 percent say Trump should fill the seat now. Nathaniel Rakich writes, “If that split sounds familiar, that’s because it closely echoes both polls of Trump’s approval rating (43 percent approval vs. 53 percent disapproval, on average) and national horse-race polls between Trump and Joe Biden (which average out to Biden 50 percent, Trump 43 percent). In other words, partisanship is probably driving people’s opinions of when the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled.”
COMPETING CONCERNS
|Carol E. Lee, Amanda Hayes and Leigh Ann Caldwell with NBC News note that PRESIDENT TRUMP is having to navigate competing demands from evangelical leaders who disagree over who the better pick would be between AMY CONEY BARRETT and BARBARA LAGOA. “Trump has heard from evangelical leaders who argue that his religious supporters might be less enthusiastic about a nominee like Lagoa — who they say doesn’t have enough of a paper trail to demonstrate conservative credentials — but who say they’ll turn out to vote for the president’s choice anyway. Others have told Trump that they’ll accept only a nominee like Barrett, who they say has a clear conservative and anti-abortion record, and that without such a pick he’ll lose critical support.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Should Supreme Court justices have term limits? | Yes: Ensure seats are filled fairly and rationally.
The Philadelphia Inquirer“A moment that should have brought us together as Americans in celebration of the values Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped elucidate during her decades of public service has instead become one that will deepen our divisions and corrode our already crumbling sense of shared purpose. It didn’t have to be this way. This was a choice — not a choice we actively made, but one passively made for us, as we have allowed our democratic system to continue to rely upon justices afforded life tenure. This is despite the fact that term limits for the Supreme Court have long been popular among the American people, with demonstrated strong support across the partisan spectrum for years.”
Civil Rights Are On The Line With Trump's Supreme Court Pick
CNN“Part of Justice Ginsburg’s great legacy is reminding us that the Supreme Court belongs to all of us — and not to one party or politician. And right now, many of the rights and freedoms we cherish are on the line as the Trump administration challenges this simple truth.”
Democrats finally grasp the importance of the Supreme Court — when it’s almost too late
The Washington Post“As someone who has constantly tried to get liberals to realize the importance of the Supreme Court (see here or here), I’m heartened that Democrats are finally realizing what the stakes are. Unfortunately, it comes at a time when defeat is almost inevitable; while there are a few procedural moves Senate Democrats can make to slow the process down, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is determined to move Trump’s nominee through the process in a matter of weeks, and there’s almost nothing that will stop him.”
OTHER NEWS
Of The 114 Supreme Court Justices In US history, All But 6 Have Been White Men
CNN“Until 1981, every Supreme Court justice was male. But Ronald Reagan promised he’d put a woman on the court, and during his first year in office he kept that promise by appointing Sandra Day O’Connor. Before that, presidents had appointed women to lower courts, but no one gave serious thought to putting one on the Supreme Court. President Harry Truman thought about nominating a woman, but justices at the time said they ‘would inhibit their conference deliberations.'”