In the 78th Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of government. It lacked the financial and military powers of the other branches. Early on, the Supreme Court handled few cases. Part-time justices worked from borrowed spaces in the U.S. Capitol, and some nominees declined the job due to its low prestige.
Today, Supreme Court justices earn over $300,000 annually and have personal chambers and staff. Their lifetime appointments mean they can serve through multiple presidential terms. The court now influences nearly every aspect of American life, deciding on around 80 significant cases each year. Recent decisions have overturned established legal precedents on reproductive rights, affirmative action, and voting rights. These rulings often split along ideological lines.
This occurs as the public observes ethically concerning behavior among some justices. Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury trips for years without disclosure. Justice Samuel Alito received gifts from a billionaire who later appeared before the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch promoted his book, earning a significant advance, on Fox News. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been paid over $2 million for her book promotions. All six conservative justices recently attended a state dinner hosted by an administration whose policies frequently face their review.
Recent Marquette analysis shows that less than half of Americans trust the court, with its approval rating at a near record-low 42%.
The public demands reforms, with 75% supporting term limits for justices. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans agree that an institution without checks or accountability cannot function properly. No other major democracy grants life tenure to constitutional court judges.
The consequences are clear: contentious confirmation battles and strategically timed retirements. Presidents choose younger nominees to influence the court for generations, leading to a disconnection between the court and the public it serves.
To address this, I have proposed the ROBE (Reform of Bench Eligibility) Act, advocating for 18-year term limits for justices. Regular, predictable turnover would lessen the impact of any single appointment. It would reduce political gamesmanship and ensure a fair appointment process for all presidents.
Some colleagues support implementing term limits through legislation. While useful, such laws are temporary, susceptible to repeal, and likely to face legal challenges. A constitutional amendment offers a permanent solution.
Amending the Constitution requires broad consensus, ensuring reforms are thoughtful and systemic. An 18-year term limit won’t solve every problem immediately but could rebuild trust in a court seen as drifting from its democratic foundation.
This reform is crucial. It should be achieved through a constitutional amendment, reflecting collective will and ensuring lasting impact.
Johnny Olszewski represents Maryland’s 2nd Congressional District. The views in this article are his own.
Leave a Reply