Senate Democrats have unveiled a proposal for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices, conveniently sidestepping any mention of term limits for themselves. The plan, spearheaded by two senators, seeks to cap future justices’ tenures at 18 years. The move feels more like a shot at the Supreme Court’s conservative majority than a sincere effort to improve governance. After all, one of the plan’s champions has already drawn ire from progressives for throwing a wrench into their National Labor Relations Board goals. It seems like he’s doubling down on ruffling feathers.
While the idea might win applause from those eager to tinker with the system, it’s treading dangerously close to violating the Constitution. Article III explicitly guarantees life tenure for federal judges, and this amendment would toss that right out the window. If passed, it would lock Supreme Court appointments into a predictable two-year cycle, aligning neatly with presidential terms. Translation: every election could turn into a Supreme Court bidding war, complete with campaign ads promising handpicked justices. The only thing cooler than watching Senate confirmation hearings become more civil, as proponents naively suggest, is watching presidential elections morph into high-stakes reality TV.
Critics argue that this bill would inject even more partisanship into a court already under the microscope. With guaranteed appointments every presidential term, the judiciary could start to mirror the White House’s political whims. This could destabilize the court’s role as an independent check on government power, turning its decisions into political footballs. Rather than fostering unity, this reform risks making the Supreme Court an even more divisive institution, where rulings swing wildly depending on who sits in the Oval Office.
Supporters claim this amendment would solve problems within the court, but opponents counter that there’s no problem to fix. Despite the conservative tilt, the current court frequently delivers unanimous decisions, proving it’s more than capable of functioning without intervention. Only a handful of cases have split along ideological lines, yet this hasn’t stopped Democrats from framing the court as a rogue entity in desperate need of reform. It’s hard to ignore the whiff of political opportunism here—after all, why else would they target the judiciary while ignoring their own unchecked tenure?
Then there’s the matter of what justices would do after their 18 years are up. Critics worry term limits could incentivize decisions that pave the way for cushy post-court careers. Book deals, speaking tours, and lucrative advisory roles could suddenly hold more appeal than impartiality. Of course, Congress has already set the gold standard for cashing in on public office, with its members’ stock portfolios outperforming Wall Street. If justices follow a similar path, this reform could backfire, leaving the court as politicized and self-serving as the lawmakers pushing the amendment. In the end, this proposal seems less about fixing the system and more about rigging it in favor of short-term political gains.
