SCOTUS Term Limits (Short)

A law professor has a NYT op-ed supportive of short term limits (12 or even 8 years) for Supreme Court justices.

More is needed to address the court’s current composition and approach — not by expanding the size of the court but through even more powerful, that is, shorter, term limits.

The op-ed doesn't directly address what I take as likely -- the term limits are not going to be applied to the current membership. They will be prospective. Big changes (such as to the death penalty) tend to be. The 22A did not apply to Truman (in office at the time). So, we are talking about new members here. Not that term limits at all are too realistic now.

I would be wary about too short terms here. Very short terms will also only encourage the to me overuse of appellate judges for justices. I think justices need a few years to "get their feet wet."

And, if you have fixed term, it might somehow effect their last year or two. They will somehow start acting with retirement in mind. I'm not exactly sure what this would entail, but seems likely. So, you have a strong center that works best. If you have an eight year term, it would be to me probably too small.

I'm open to a shorter term than eighteen years. 12-15 years might work. I'm not sure how much it will matter, but guess it has value. A shorter term will make each candidate that much less essential. Thomas has been there for thirty years. Someone there for 12 is less important. As I noted in my addendum last time, any one thing isn't enough here anyway.

Expanding the court (“court packing”) might be justified if things were to get worse. For now, it risks setting off a dynamic with dangers for democracy.

How much worse? You have 1/3 of the Supreme Court obtained by corrupt ways. They also come from someone voted by a minority of the voting public. I realize that is our system, but whatever is in place that looks bad that is in need of reform is not illegal as such. It is felt the system has gotten so askew that we need change. Thomas has his own issues. Some think Roberts/Alito are tainted by 2000 too, but I think 2004 did reset things. 

There is also a fear that if you "pack" the Court, it will send a message to other nations that they too can do so.  I'm unsure how much our actions will matter (various aspects of our legal and political system are not used worldwide or only somewhat, such as our presidential system), but will continue to point out that NOT doing anything also sends a message.

Term limits does not address the concern of a stacked court where the appointment process was abused.  Term limits is a useful device that in a limited way will lower the temperature of nominations, but like any other powerful office, they will remain politically divisive with temptation of abuse.  And, they will not immediately address the problem the expansion supporters cite.  In fact, it might be a long time coming. 

A way to go is a short term expansion that deals with the current situation, which can factor in the likelihood that term limits will not apply to the current membership.  When we have nine new justices (or pick you number), the membership can be fixed, and vacancies will not be replaced until we are down to nine (or whatever number).  

There is the usual concern that there will be a tit for tat response. This will only be able to be done if the Republicans again regain a trifecta with each part supportive of it (a 52/48 Senate might not).  That is not easy in itself.  The ultimate solution there might be to try to find some "deal" to satisfy a few Republicans.  What this entails, I grant, it's hard to say now.  But, the shift here is such a big change that we can be surprised if it ever happens.

There is also a concern that the Supreme Court will be too big and it will then have to operate via some panel system.  I don't think that would be too bad.  Some argue it is constitutionally problematic, but the product of panels can be subject to a vote of the whole.  And, for important cases, an en banc Court can form.  

Anyway, the op-ed grants a term limit constitutional amendment is the safest route for passage of a term limit.  And, if there is a will for such of amendment, other court changes might be on the table there too. So, the op-ed at the end of the day seems fairly academic on some level.  

If not quite as much as the op-ed I talked about earlier, partially since it is more focused on term limits than badmouthing expansion, this op-ed to me also does not accurately provide a full accounting of the situation.  

It does not really consider the problems in place now that that drives people to want to expand the Supreme Court.  It vaguely leaves open ("maybe") some more serious situation (what? 2023 after the 6-3 Court is in power for two terms?) down the road.  Why isn't the current situation bad enough?

I'm fairly pessimistic in the short term about EITHER reform occurring, but these things are long term efforts.  I supported same sex marriage in the 1990s.  Ending military discrimination of gays was also an issue as the Clinton Administration began.  It took like twenty years for both to occur.  So, we need to seriously look at these issues and press before the time comes where change is likely.  

So, we should look at these issues carefully as the Presidential Commission of the Supreme Court et. al. provide room for the issues to be focused upon.