They need to stop being presidential appointees.
For fuck sakes America, you need to dial back the power of POTUS, because it's far more than any King worldwide.
this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
409 points (99.0% liked)
politics
29757 readers
3449 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
18 years is too long. The longer a person is allowed to keep authority, the greater the odds of corruption become. I have proposed 10 year terms in the past, but still feel uncomfortable about letting anyone have that much time.
People have told me that justices are supposed to stay a long time, to offer stability and to be free of political campaigns. However, the longer the Trump Regime operates, the greater disbelief that I have in long-held offices. To me, it feels like that I was told lies by the people who opposed term and age limits.
18 years is the correct length. It' the shortest term that prevents a single 2-term President from being able to replace the majority of the Court.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I support 18 years, it is better than lifetime appointment.
I would also support 9 years per term, with no limit on number of terms, but requiring full process (including Senate consultation and approval) for re-appointments.
The problem I see with shorter terms is more opportunity for a corrupt executive branch to pack the court with corrupt, or at least highly political, justices. With 18 year terms they could be staggered out so one justice every 2 years would reach the end of their term and need to be replaced, limiting that to 2 justices per presidential term.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I’m ok with this. Long enough to develop institutional knowledge, but eliminates the “I'm set for life and nobody can do anything to me” attitudes.
Plus about half the court would cycle out right this moment.
If became effective immediately, by the end of his term Trump would have installed 8 of the 9 justices on the Court, as Sotamayor and Kagan were both first-term Obama appointees.
The last time this was discussed, the idea was to cycle them out every 2 years, starting with the longest-serving (Thomas) through the newest (Jackson).
That would result in no change to the current partisan makeup during Trump's term. If it were to take effect on January 1, he would get to change out Thomas and Roberts, with the next President getting Alito and Sotamayor in their first term, and Kagan and Gorsuch in their second.
It would actually be ideal to wait until the next President (hopefully a Dem) if the goal was to restore balance, since the first 3 replacements seats were all Republican-appointed.
Though what would actually happen is the Thomas, Alito, and Roberts would all resign and be replaced by new Republicans right before the law took effect so that the longest-remaining terms were all Republican-appointed when the law takes effect.
OF course. Timing is everything
I suspect this would only apply to justices going forward; even if this passed, we're stuck with the current ppl.
And if they cycle out right now we'd have Trump / Federalist Society pics
Given the way the Democrats behave even if they were in power the Republicans would just have to complain that's it's 4 years too close to an election and the end result would be the same.
Not the exact amendment that the article is about. It's explicit that anyone over the limit is gone when it's ratified.
Way too long, but if it could be retroactively in effect then maybe.
Way too long
With no limits on tenure, the average Supreme Court term since 1993 has reached 28 years — over twice as long as most peer countries. I would say that knocking 10 years off this average - particularly when three of the worst judges are already over the limit would yield an immediate and dramatic improvement in court functions. I also don't know what the optimal SCOTUS tenure should be. 8 years? 12 years? 2 years? Presumably, you want extended terms to cement court precedent. But, idk, maybe you don't?
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any actual text of this bill. Just a bunch of headlines announcing the announcement.
So it's very possible he's grandfathered sitting SCOTUS judges in, at which point the bill would be worse than performative.
"The tenure in office of a justice of the Supreme Court may not exceed 18 years. In the case of any justice who is serving as of the ratification of this amendment, if the tenure in office of that justice is 18 years or more, that term of that justice shall be terminated. If such a justice is the Chief Justice, the position shall be filled in accordance with law."
That's the entirety of the proposed amendment.
Seems pretty straightforward. But do we really want to give Trump a chance to get 3 more justices that will rule the courts for the next 18 years?
Exactly. A phased rollout could give successive administrations opportunity to select their own. But let's not be naïve: they'd all quit now to give their seats to Trump appointees.
"In the case of any justice who is serving as of the ratification of this amendment, if the tenure in office of that justice is 18 years or more, that term of the justice having the longest tenure shall be terminated immediately. Every two years thereafter the next longest tenured justice shall be teminated until such time no justice having over 18 years tenure remains."
A better solution would be an expansion then contraction. Add 2 seats every two years for 6 years, then start removing at 18 years two years after we have 15 justices. Hopefully by that time most will have voluntary left anyway,and we will have had enough executive and congressional turnover to make this more fair and representative.
load more comments
(3 replies)
8 or 10 sounds okay since they're appointed by POTUS, shorter terms might be problematic because it would make it easier to stack unless we limit that power somehow. I don't want mummies holding office forever to cement precedent, I want progress which aligns with the views of the current majority of voters.
H.J.Res. 174: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-joint-resolution/174?hl=H.J.Res.+174&s=4&r=1
https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hjres174/BILLS-119hjres174ih.pdf
8 or 10 sounds okay
But why? Like, what's the reasoning of 10 years rather than 12 or 6 or 24? It seems like we're trying to apply a magic number to a policy problem. If the SCOTUS judges come to the same rules with different term limits, are we going to come back here and say we need to fiddle with the magic number some more?
I don’t want mummies holding office forever to cement precedent
I think one of the upshots of lifetime term limits has been younger and younger bench appointees. Roberts was 50 when he took the job.
H.J.Res. 174: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.
Well, there's the damned thing. Not great that it has zero co-sponsors. But I guess people are talking about it, which is nice.
“The tenure in office of a justice of the Supreme Court may not exceed 18 years. In the case of any justice who is serving as of the ratification of this amendment, if the tenure in office of that justice is 18 years or more, that term of that justice shall be terminated. If such a justice is the Chief Justice, the position shall be filled in accordance with law.”
Ah, I see he's got balls enough to put the right kind of language in there. Wish he could rally some other reps behind this idea before he launched it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
It is explicitly retroactive.
Here's the entire amendment:
"The tenure in office of a justice of the Supreme Court may not exceed 18 years. In the case of any justice who is serving as of the ratification of this amendment, if the tenure in office of that justice is 18 years or more, that term of that justice shall be terminated. If such a justice is the Chief Justice, the position shall be filled in accordance with law."
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is a constitutional amendment, y'all realize that's a generational project, right? Impeachment and removal are trivial by comparison.
Actually, the way that some of these recent bills have been worded is designed to be achievable without an amendment:
-
Justices that reach their term limit would be assigned "senior status"
-
they would still hold their appointment for life, but wouldnt actually serve on the Court again unless there was a vacancy
By doing it this way, they preserve the "lifetime appointment" part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people
NGL, this is clever as fuck.
This is the kind of shit I want out of democrats. I know rule of law is iffy right now but damn I rather have them doing shit like this than peering down their glasses at us.
load more comments
(1 replies)
By doing it this way, they preserve the "lifetime appointment" part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people
...Until someone brings a lawsuit, which goes to the Supreme Court and they conveniently decide for themselves that the law imposing term limits on them is unconstitutional.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Too long. Term should be # of justices on SCOTUS. Currently 9, who should NOT be grandfathered in life time appointment. Instead, cycle them out based on tenure each year from when the bill is passed. Also, any SCOTUS appointee should either be selected by or have the endorsement of a majority of the federal circuits.
This would be a good start, though it's probably too late for meaningful enough change to our system of government.
The Constitution specifies that the justices and other federal judges shall serve "during good behavior." This is interpreted as a lifetime appointment, subject to impeachment. That's why this proposal is written as a constitutional amendment. It would need a 2/3 majority in both houses, and then 3/4 of state legislatures would need to ratify.
There's another idea floating around to impose de facto term limits by regular federal law by rotating justices in and out of lower federal courts at defined intervals.
There are also a bunch of other things that an angry Congress could do to rein in the court (using regular federal law):
- they could use the good behavior clause to impose a written ethics code, or the CLE requirement that another commenter mentioned.
- they can set the court's jurisdiction (except for suits between states). They can take jurisdiction away.
- On another jurisdictional topic: currently nearly all of the court's docket is discretionary. They get to decide which cases to take up. Congress can take that power away and force the court to hear appeals on a mandatory basis again.
- Congress controls the annual budget. They get to decide whether the justices have money for clerks, robes, and office supplies or not.
- Congress can specify what dates the court is in session and for how long. At least one time, this power was used to try to prevent the court from meeting.
- Likewise, for a large part of the court's history, Congress decreed that the court meet in the basement of the Capitol. Not the big fancy marble building. It could happen again.
- as part of its oversight power, Congress has the power to subpoena justices to hearings and to grill them on their decisions on live TV. This actually happened to Justice Kennedy after Bush v. Gore.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, I'm a fan of the idea, but very much not a fan of how this proposal wants to implement it. I'm much more inclined to agree with a plan that says "each president shall get two appointments to the supreme court, with one in the first half of their term and one in the second, with the longest serving member being removed from the role upon confirmation, or at the end of next federal election cycle, whichever comes first. In the case of a death of a sitting member, the most recently retired/removed member shall return to the court until the next normal appointment by the president." Phase out the current court gradually, if only to prevent a cycle of large turnover in 18 years after we lose like half out current court.
Hell yes!
What would be a realistic argument for and against this. Seems like if your party is in the majority regardless you wouldn't want it and vice versa.
Originally, the Supreme Court was just supposed to be the highest court. The Founding Fathers wanted those positions to be apolitical, and they thought a good way of doing that would be making the position last a lifetime. I.e., if you dont have to worry about getting re-elected, your decisions will be more pure.
Things changed due to Marbury vs. Madison, where the court gave itself the power of judicial review, essentially the power to change laws, which is where they became much more powerful. Nowadays, people are taught that there are 3 branches of government with checks and balances over each other, which is true, but it was not originally that way until Marbury vs. Madison.
The problem with literally any government form, though, is that there is never any immunity to bad actors. Term limits dont necessarily solve anything, but if the justices are acting like any other politician anyway, we might as well treat them that way.
I would argue the best solution is ironclad ethics rules that are grounds for impeachment. E.g., if you are clearly owned by a billionaire, you should be impeached. That comes back around to the "no safety from bad actors"-problem, though, when congress refuses to do the "right" thing.
Forbid Supreme Court justices from ever owning anything ever again after they become justices. Establish a community for Supreme Court justices that has nice houses, amenities, everything that they could reasonably want, and then require that they and their immediate families live in the Supreme Court compound. Anyone found violating this oath is stripped of all benefits and exiled to Scottsdale Arizona to live out the remainder of their miserable lives.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This will never fly like this. Republicans arnt going to vote out thier majority. But it's good to start trying to push the idea and make it an actual law some day.
load more comments
(3 replies)
How about 10 years with a 24 hour CE requirement in constitutional law and ethics every 24 months?
view more: next ›