Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Don Beyer (D-VA) reintroduced The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act following the Supreme Court’s recent decisions that did not go as they wished. 

The Supreme Court Term Limits Act fundamentally reframes the power of our nation’s highest court. The bill would establish 18-year term limits on any Supreme Court Justices approved after his bill’s passage. After their 18-year terms, justices would then be allowed to continue their service on lower courts, as former Justices Souter and O’Connor currently do. Current justices would be exempt from the term limits. Going forward, the bill would then create a regular appointment process to allow every president to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court during each odd year, guaranteeing each president the opportunity to nominate two justices per four-year term.

Specifically, the bill requires the President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice every two years. If the appointment of a Justice would result in more than nine Justices on the Court, then the nine most junior Justices shall make up the panel of Justices exercising judicial power in cases and controversies.

Further, any Justice who has served a total of 18 years is deemed retired from regular service and may continue to serve as a Senior Justice. Senior Justices may continue to perform judicial duties assigned to them by the Chief Justice. However, no Justice appointed before the date of enactment shall be counted towards such panel, nor shall they be required to retire from regular active service. In the event of a vacancy on the Court, the Chief Justice must assign the Justice most recently designated as a Senior Justice to serve on the Court until the appointment of a new Justice. Additionally, the Senate's advice and consent authority is waived if the Senate does not act within 120 days of a Justice's nomination.

For:

According to a recent poll, only 37% of Americans have confidence in the Supreme Court while 68% support term limits for Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act will restore judicial independence by creating an 18-year term limit for justices appointed after the law is enacted. After their 18-year terms, justices would then be allowed to continue their service on lower courts.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA): "Our Founding Fathers intended for lifetime appointments to ensure impartiality. [Recent] decisions demonstrate how justices have become partisan and out of step with the American public. I'm proud to reintroduce The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act to implement term limits to rebalance the Court and stop extreme partisanship.”

Against:

Those against it argue that this is nothing more than sour grapes. It is a Democratic Party ploy to counter the wishes of the American people. Many feel that in passing this legislation, Democrats are simply throwing a fit over the fact that they lost recent rulings by the court. This is something that Republicans have dealt with for decades; however, the Republicans did not try to alter the court. A ruling party packing or altering a nation’s highest court is a rare national embarrassment, even in less developed countries.

Lifetime appointments shield justices from political pressures and potential retribution. They can make decisions based on the law and the Constitution without worrying about how it might affect their reappointment or future careers. Long tenures allow for more consistency in legal interpretation. Frequent turnover could lead to rapid and unpredictable shifts in legal precedents, undermining the stability of the law.

If Democrats manage to alter the Supreme Court for political gain, the country would join the august ranks of Venezuela in 2004 and Argentina in 1989. That any Democrats are seriously considering a plan to alter or pack the courts is a sad development for the United States.

Do you think Congress should pass H.R.4423, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act?