By Sean Chopra

One of the core pillars in any democracy is the electoral accountability of our representatives. If an elected official behaves counter to their constituents’ beliefs and ideologies or is just flat-out incompetent, we have the opportunity to voice our opinion by voting them out. In a similar vein, to make sure singular individuals do not hold power for too long, we term limit many of our elected leaders (Presidents, Governors, Mayors). However, one branch of the U.S. government is not subject to any of these constraints: the United States Supreme Court. 

Now let me be clear; the Supreme Court is not privy to any electoral oversight for some very clear-cut reasons. I sat through fifth-grade history class and was told how the founders wanted the supreme court to be as impartial as possible and not subject to the fast-moving winds of the American public. I am in no way advocating for this to change. When you consider how misinformed and uninterested the typical voter is, the last thing we need would be for them to elect more people of high salience, especially when the issues at hand are so complicated. However, since we are eschewing electoral accountability, it makes it much more pressing we have some kind of surveillance on the court. This is why we must end the life appointments of Supreme Court justices and install term limits on their tenures.

One of the biggest problems with the lack of term limits is the game of strategic retirements. It is a well-known fact that Supreme Court justices stay on the bench many years longer than they otherwise would because they seek to be replaced by a president of shared ideology. This sentiment was echoed by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who famously stated that retiring from the court was “not a judicial act.” In other words, he saw nothing wrong with allowing politics to play a part in retirement. This sentiment was echoed by departing liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, and there are numerous reports suggesting that Justice Ginsberg planned on retiring had Hillary Clinton won in 2016, so there is no ideological divide. 

The absence of term limits leads to justices who choose to stay on the Bench at the expense of their health and decision-making. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the most recent example of this. Now, in no way am I trying to diminish the impenetrable legacy Ginsberg leaves behind or the incredible life she led. However, over the final several years of her term, she suffered from a myriad of health problems that inarguably affected her ability to perform her duties on the court. She was unable to attend hearings for extended periods of time and was reportedly falling asleep in the hearings she was attending.  It does not serve the court well when we have justices who continue to serve despite clear detrimental physical limitations. Term limits could help mend this problem. By presetting the number of years they would serve, justices would likely not be as old by the end of their term. Furthermore, term limits would prevent justices from selfishly staying on the court longer than their mental and physical capacities suggest they should.

Now that the problem has been identified and a broad solution put forward, it is fair to ask exactly how these term limits would work. For general guidance, we can look at the proposals put forward by the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.  This was a commission created by the Biden Administration to put forward answers on the various criticisms of the Supreme Court, many of which I outlined above. It suggested that ­- via a constitutional amendment – there be 18-year term limits put in place. The term would be non-renewable. This would help to create stability on the court. Instead of having to hold our breath waiting for the next  justice to retire or die, we would know exactly when their time was up. If a justice did have to retire prior to the end of their set term, it was recommended a former justice be selected to serve the remainder of the term after which a successor would be appointed. Alternatively, the president could nominate someone to fill the rest of the term, after which they could be re-nominated for their full eighteen years. 

The arcane rules which legislate the Supreme Court have artificially made the Supreme Court nomination process increasingly political and have led to justices staying on the bench for longer terms even at the expense of their health. Modern-day reforms are desperately needed, and term limits would be a start in bringing back balance and credibility to the court.

Sean Chopra ’24 studies in the college of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at chopra.s@wustl.edu.