Democrats criticize ‘politicized’ Supreme Court, renew call for term limits.

Pushing for Term Limits: Democrat Representatives Take on the Supreme Court

Amidst the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rulings on affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, and more, two Democrat representatives are making a bold move. They are advocating for term limits for Supreme Court justices, aiming to address what they perceive as an “out-of-touch” court.

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) have reintroduced the “Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act” to bring about this change. The bill proposes staggered, 18-year terms for justices, with a new justice being nominated and appointed every two years.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to block student debt relief will put many hardworking Americans at risk of default and will be a disaster for our economy,” states Mr. Khanna. “Our Founding Fathers intended for lifetime appointments to ensure impartiality. The decision today demonstrates 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.”

Overhauling the Court

Article III of the Constitution establishes that Supreme Court justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” allowing them to serve for as long as they choose, unless removed by impeachment. However, the idea of imposing term limits on the court’s membership is not new, and neither is the latest legislation.

The term limits bill, now being promoted by Democrats, was previously introduced by Mr. Khanna in August 2021 but failed to gain traction in the House under Democrat leadership.

Under the provisions of the bill, a new Supreme Court justice would be appointed during the first and third years of every presidential term. After serving 18 years on the court, a justice would be deemed retired from regular active service and take on the title of “senior justice.”

Senior justices, with the chief justice’s direction, would be able to continue performing “such judicial activities as such justice is willing and able to undertake,” such as serving on lower courts. However, they would not be part of the panel of nine junior justices issuing opinions on matters before the court. In case of a vacancy due to death, disability, or removal of a justice, the most recently retired senior justice would temporarily step in until a new appointment is confirmed.

It’s important to note that these changes would not apply to the current justices on the court.