A crisis has a way of illuminating problems and motivating change. With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg just weeks before the next election, Republicans are backing out of a rule and promise that they made in 2016. Not only did they lie, but they are actively attempting to hijack the Supreme Court to mold the rights and freedoms that we have as Americans into their own worldviews.
Knowing that, is it time to reform the Supreme Court? The CNN story below is about a Democrat proposal to do just that, and it’s honestly long overdue.
House Democrats to introduce bill setting 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices
Original article from: CNN
House Democrats plan to introduce a bill next week that would limit US Supreme Court justices’ lifetime appointments to 18 years, a largely symbolic response to the high-stakes battle in Congress over the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The legislation has no chance of passage in the GOP-led Senate, where Republicans are trying to fast-track a successor to Ginsburg and enshrine a conservative majority for a generation. Democrats have accused the GOP of a power grab and argue that the iconic liberal justice’s successor should be picked by the next president, but Republicans say it’s the President’s constitutional prerogative to fill the empty seat.
We like to put the framers of the Constitution on a pedestal. However, the reality is that the Constitution was mostly a compromise based on outdated views about what might happen if we had too much democracy. The document that is supposed to protect freedom and democracy is used to justify doing the opposite. Congress passed the 1965 Voter Rights Act. The Supreme Court took it away. Congress passed several laws to reform campaign finance. The Supreme Court removed them. The Supreme Court hasn’t helped to further progress. It’s been a drag on progress.
Some of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American History
Let’s skip past the partisan issues for now. Let’s look at the damage that a biased and partisan Supreme Court has done in the past. These are but a few:
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): The Dred Scott ruling barred laws that would free slaves, and prevented any political solution to slavery. The result was the Civil War.
The Civil Rights Cases (1883): The Civil Rights Cases struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which sought to ban racial discrimination in businesses and public accommodations.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): This ruling gave rise to the “separate but equal” idea and led to Jim Crow laws.
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): The Court ruled that Congress could not ban child labor.
Buck v. Bell (1927): The Court decided that it was okay to submit people to forced sterilization if they were declared to have “intellectual disabilities.”
Korematsu v. United States (1944): The Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Japanese Americans were deprived of due process and confined to camps because of their race.
Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This decision held that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to help politicians get elected.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013): This ruling struck down a key component of the Voting Rights Act. Almost immediately, states began implementing strategies to suppress voting and disenfranchise voters.
Supreme Court rulings have long-lasting impacts. We see first-hand the ramifications from Citizens United as corporations spend millions of dollars to ensure their preferred politicians get elected. We also see how voter suppression tactics returned immediately after the Shelby County vs. Holder decision in 2013. But what may be less obvious is how poor Supreme Court decisions from long ago affect us today. One thing leads to another. Each wrong decision was a building block for other destructive decisions. Dred Scott was a link in the chain of events that resulted in the Civil War. The Civil War led to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which led to Andrew Johnson, one of the most racist Presidents in history, undermining Lincoln’s efforts. Soon after, the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 undid most of the Civil Rights progress. Plessy vs. Ferguson soon followed, and the Jim Crow Laws took effect. Each hard-fought progressive step toward a better future had an ideological Supreme Court that would stop or reverse that progress. The Supreme Court routinely overturned good laws making us less democratic and less free.
Because our society still uses a 244-year-old document as our current legal framework, we have to ensure an ideological Supreme Court doesn’t restrain future generations’ freedoms to govern themselves. The Constitution was written by men who could not have fathomed the challenges we face today. Likewise, we can’t fathom the challenges that future generations will confront.
This article isn’t about what Democrats are currently proposing. It isn’t about what is likely to happen. It isn’t about which changes may or may not be constitutional. It’s about imagining something better than the situation that has plagued our nation for far too long.
Hypothetically, assume the Supreme Court was restructured as follows:
- 27 judges instead of 9
- 18-year term limits for judges
- New judges appointed every 2 years.
- Judges get appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, approved by the House, and recalled via popular national vote if 40% of House-members vote for a recall.
| Judge # | Term Begins | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Judge 1 | 2021 | 2039 |
| Judge 2 | 2021 | 2039 |
| Judge 3 | 2023 | 2041 |
| Judge 4 | 2023 | 2041 |
| Judge 5 | 2025 | 2043 |
| Judge 6 | 2025 | 2043 |
| Judge 7 | 2027 | 2045 |
| Judge 8 | 2027 | 2045 |
| Judge 9 | 2029 | 2047 |
| Judge 10 | 2029 | 2047 |
| Judge 11 | 2031 | 2049 |
| Judge 12 | 2031 | 2049 |
| Judge 13 | 2033 | 2051 |
| Judge 14 | 2033 | 2051 |
| Judge 15 | 2035 | 2053 |
| Judge 16 | 2035 | 2053 |
| Judge 17 | 2037 | 2055 |
| Judge 18 | 2037 | 2055 |
| Judge 19 | 2039 | 2057 |
| Judge 20 | 2039 | 2057 |
| Judge 21 | 2041 | 2059 |
| Judge 22 | 2041 | 2059 |
| Judge 23 | 2043 | 2061 |
| Judge 24 | 2043 | 2061 |
| Judge 25 | 2045 | 2063 |
| Judge 26 | 2045 | 2063 |
| Judge 27 | 2047 | 2065 |
Benefits of 27 judges
If the size of the Court was expanded it would virtually eliminate the political manipulation of the Supreme Court. Packing the Court with partisan judges would be extremely difficult.
Benefits of the 18-year term limit for judges
The 18-year term limit would reduce the chances of individual biases swinging in either direction. Also, it would expand the pool of judges to many who are older. Currently, Presidents tend to appoint younger judges because of their lifetime appointments.
Benefits of staggering nominations every two years
By staggering the nominations every two years, fresh new judges replace older ones in predictable intervals. Even if one or two bad judges slip through, they wouldn’t be there forever. Democracy would not hinge on whether or not a judge dies during the “wrong” administration.
Benefits of including the House and the People
In a representative democracy, the people elect representatives to “represent” them. That should go without saying. However, we are losing that representation. Because of the electoral college, a person can become President without winning the popular vote. Because every state has two Senators, 44 Senators from the lowest-population states represent the same number of people as just 2 Senators from California. Currently, only the President and Senate currently decide who becomes a Supreme Court Justice. The framers of the Constitution missed a serious check-and-balance with that one!
If we could implement a system where judges get appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, approved by the House, and possibly recalled via popular national vote, it would be highly unlikely to get an ideological Justice. The general population would have a legal channel to remove the Justice.
The bottom line
The Supreme Court is too important to leave up to chance. We can’t have a representative democracy if the Supreme Court doesn’t represent us. It cannot become a tool used by ideologues. We must prevent today’s corruption from hindering the ability of future generations to govern themselves.