The significant arguments for implementing an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices are the unequality of presidential appointments, the political implications of judges’ retirements, and the idea that lifetime judges can become out-of-touch with American society. Implementing the 18-year term limit would allow for the appointment of a new judge every two years; therefore, every president would be able to nominate two judges in a four-year term. This change would account for the inequality in presidential influence on the Supreme Court. For example, Richard Nixon served as president for a year and half longer than Jimmy Carter, but Nixon appointed four judges to Carter’s zero. An 18-year term also takes the decision of when a justice
…show more content…
First, the slow turnover rate of the Supreme Court is a good thing. The slow turnover rate generally means that the Supreme Court is slower in adopting new laws. Supporters of lifetime appointments argue that the slow turnover rate protects against quick political majorities that could radically change the law. Second, allowing each president the same amount of appointments would result in a radically new Supreme Court for every two-term president. Also, the Supreme Court appointments would play a larger role in every presidential election, and it would force the justices to feel more obligated to vote in accordance to their appointer’s ideology. Under the 18-year term limit, a two-term president would be able to nominate four Supreme Court justices, a near majority. Opponents argue that this leads to radical change in the Supreme Court far too often and could result in the Supreme Court acting too fast. Lastly, lifetime appointments allow for a better representation of past elections. In other words, lifetime appointments create a better consensus of several past elections. For example, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court gave a lot of power back to states. This was the result of conservative presidents winning either election or reelection in five of six elections stretching from 1968 to
First, the slow turnover rate of the Supreme Court is a good thing. The slow turnover rate generally means that the Supreme Court is slower in adopting new laws. Supporters of lifetime appointments argue that the slow turnover rate protects against quick political majorities that could radically change the law. Second, allowing each president the same amount of appointments would result in a radically new Supreme Court for every two-term president. Also, the Supreme Court appointments would play a larger role in every presidential election, and it would force the justices to feel more obligated to vote in accordance to their appointer’s ideology. Under the 18-year term limit, a two-term president would be able to nominate four Supreme Court justices, a near majority. Opponents argue that this leads to radical change in the Supreme Court far too often and could result in the Supreme Court acting too fast. Lastly, lifetime appointments allow for a better representation of past elections. In other words, lifetime appointments create a better consensus of several past elections. For example, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court gave a lot of power back to states. This was the result of conservative presidents winning either election or reelection in five of six elections stretching from 1968 to