For ads-free news, click here.
The debate over whether Supreme Court justices should have term limits has gained traction in recent years, despite their current lifetime appointments.
Proponents of term limits argue that fixed terms, such as 18 years, would prevent justices from serving well into old age, potentially out of touch with modern societal values. Critics of lifetime tenure also contend that it entrenches power, allowing justices to shape the court’s ideology for decades without accountability. For example, a justice appointed in their 40s could serve 40 years or more, which some see as excessive in a rapidly changing world. Term limits could also reduce the political stakes of appointments, as presidents would have more predictable opportunities to nominate justices.
On the other hand, opponents of term limits argue that lifetime appointments ensure judicial independence, shielding justices from political pressures that might arise with shorter terms. They assert that the current system allows justices to develop deep expertise and maintain consistency in legal interpretation over time.
However, dissatisfaction with some justices’ rulings has fueled the term-limits debate, notably with Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Appointed in 2020, Barrett was expected to be a reliably conservative voice, but some recent decisions have disappointed her supporters, who feel she hasn’t consistently upheld the staunch conservative principles they anticipated. This ideological drift has led some to question whether lifetime appointments allow justices to evolve—or stray—too far from the expectations set at their confirmation.
We want to ask you, the reader: should SCOTUS justices have term limits? Answer in our poll below and comment your arguments for or against justices adhering to the possibility of term limits.
If you cannot see the poll, click here.
The Dennis Michael Lynch Podcast archive is available below. Never miss an episode. Subscribe to the show by downloading The DML News App or go to Apple Podcasts.
