Should SCOTUS have term limits?

Curtice (No)

The Founders created America’s three branches of government to be independent of each other. The Supreme Court, by Constitutional design, is the only branch whose members are appointed for life. This is so each justice would rule based on the law rather than on the current popular view of the age. The Founders wanted an independent judiciary with justices who are committed to the Constitution, not culture or future political prospects once they're off the Court.

Dictators have historically controlled courts to protect themselves and their friends and to punish their enemies rather than uphold the law. Term limits allow the legislative or executive branches to exert some control and influence over the highest Court in the land. Courts have often ruled in ways that either political party disagrees with—the entire point of an independent judiciary. Lifetime appointments allow Supreme Court justices to avoid any pressure to allow current political trends to ease into their decision-making. They can rule strictly on the constitutional merits of the case before them. 

Altering SCOTUS is often seen as a remedy for presidents or parties frustrated when the Court rules against their policies. During the New Deal, FDR wanted to pack the Court—adding additional justices—when it struck down some of his unconstitutional New Deal programs. Recently, Democrats have called to 'remake the Supreme Court' since SCOTUS currently has more conservative than liberal justices on it.

Moreover, safeguards are in place to keep SCOTUS justices from simply making things up as they go. They have a guide—the Constitution—to follow and uphold. Likewise, there is already a mechanism to remove justices through impeachment. Much like a president, a Supreme Court justice can be impeached by Congress. Keeping the Court as is does not threaten democracy. But these proposed changes do. 

Andrew (Yes)

Our current system of allowing justices to remain on the Court for as long as they like or are able has had the unfortunate result of creating a Court that is distinctly out of balance with the views of the American people. The current 6-3 supermajority in favor of the conservatives doesn’t really make sense when we consider that Republicans have lost five out of the last eight presidential elections. Term limits would ensure more rotation on the bench and help keep the makeup of the Court more closely aligned with public attitudes. Under our current system, a president who was barely elected may make appointments that would affect the Court for decades to come. This is an especially important point when we consider that the average life expectancy is significantly longer now than it was at our country’s founding. Term limits would correct the imbalance in our democracy.

Our nation’s founders strove to shield the Supreme Court from everyday political pressures. Unfortunately, the extreme power that these lifetime appointments have created has had the opposite effect. Republicans, in particular, have been quite vocal about their efforts to pack the Court. We should introduce term limits to keep to a more true vision of our nation’s courts. 

Finally, with most Americans disapproving of the job the Supreme Court is doing, term limits have broad support among voters in both parties. Americans are increasingly looking at the rulings the court is making and not seeing their values reflected. Term limits are not just a solution but a demand from the people. It's time to listen to the public and implement term limits, which will benefit everyone.