Forget about adding more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s a path Democrats should not go down, since it would only lead to Republican countermeasures when they take power again, which is inevitable in the seesaw nature of the federal government.
One judicial reform, though, worth considering is putting age limits or term limits on justices.
Federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, receive lifetime appointments in order to insulate them from political pressures in their decision-making. Although that’s good in theory, the longtime trend of the court has to be anything but apolitical. Liberal justices vote in ways that please Democrats, and conservative justices in ways that please Republicans.
Besides, these lifetime appointments tend to become just that. It takes the Grim Reaper to convince many justices that it’s time to give someone else a turn on the bench.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the last to leave the court, was 87 when she died. Antonin Scalia was just a few weeks short of 80. Anthony Kennedy left standing up, but he was 82.
Their three replacements — average age 50 at the time of their confirmation — could conceivably stay on the court for 30 years or more, if they stay healthy enough.
That’s too long for any justice to be interpreting the laws of this land.
Limiting justices to no more than 20 years on the court and a mandatory retirement age of 70 would guarantee new faces, sharp minds and fresh perspectives on the court. It would also give each party more opportunities to rotate the ideological balance.
And it might put an end to these occasional attempts at court packing.
