Ashwin Prabaharan ’26
Staff Writer
In last week’s issue of the Spire, an article written in favor of term limits for Supreme Court justices was published. I would like to applaud staff writer Anna Lucci for her insightful remarks on the contentious issue, given her skilled and thoughtful manner of delivery. I do, however, wish to respond to Anna’s arguments since I find it necessary to provide readers with information to best represent both sides of the term limits issue.
A major responsibility of the Supreme Court is to serve as an interpreter of the Constitution on behalf of its two counterpart branches. It also works as an intermediary between Congress and the presidency and its voting constituents to ensure they behave as prescribed and not beyond it. Its independence is crucial to ensuring the legitimate, proper functioning of our country, whether it concerns the purse held by Congress or the administrative prowess of the executive. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78, wrote:
“If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.”
The point of lifetime appointments is to shield the justices from political pressure on any and all issues, whether we find those political arguments to be worthy of consideration or not. A court more susceptible to the whims of Congress and the White House that acquiesces to every political issue out of external fear or pressure endangers the republic by not strictly adhering to the guidance of our founding document. Without a court that follows the Constitution to the letter and ensures its counterpart branches behave as prescribed, we risk untold dangers, whether it be an overzealous Congress or a President empowered with a popular mandate to act as it pleases without due regard to their institutional limits or the public good. Judicial independence, meaning less interference from other branches after appointment, ensures that justices can make the tough decisions they need to, a practice clearly lost on its counterparts. Given a guaranteed salary and heightened social status, the justices would have no personal reason to act counter to their constitutional prerogatives. Their decisions, though at times unpopular, are meant to be in adherence to the Constitution and nothing political otherwise as envisioned by the Framers.
If term limits are enacted, as per the plan rolled out by President Joe Biden which limits terms to 18 years, Congress and the President will have successfully enhanced their ability to influence the interpretive powers of the court. This however does not guarantee an outcome of one or the other. Partisan turnover of either branch means new justices of differing ideologies would be constantly appointed to the bench, risking the stability of its traditional stare decisis principle that defers to precedent and the Constitution for the sake of predictability. A deadlocked Court would be good for no one. That is the reality America would face if the bench were stacked with ideologues of opposing manners who are unable to agree on any one decision to make. The argument that diverse interpretations of the Constitution by justices of all stripes would be best is inconsiderate of the very real possibility that the justices could collectively disagree on any one approach to move forward with on a case.
Additionally, regular openings on the bench would effectively mean candidates would audition before Congress and the President to ensure their appointment. They can and will promise the enactment of certain policy preferences and preferred decisions for legal questions. This would then signal the death of judicial independence. The Court would essentially be made up of yes men acting on behalf of their clients, their counterpart branches.
The revitalization of the issue concerning the Court’s makeup given its reversal of the landmark decision Roe v. Wade is only proof that calls for term limits are made with political arguments. More to the point, this political call for term limits is nothing new to the Court. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in attempting to effect his New Deal legislation that ran afoul of the then Hughes Court, sought to maneuver around their decisions by stacking the court with six additional justices. This was only after the Court struck down several New Deal measures as unconstitutional. It was a non-issue for the President when it did not stand as an obstacle to his political agenda. The Roberts court is seen as polarized only because political issues brought before his bench are themselves by nature polarizing. The Court more often than not makes decisions in a 7-2, 8-1, and even 9-0 manner that is much less reported. The unity of the Court is at much less risk than sensationalized by pundits and interest groups.
To the point that this is the most polarized that the Court has been viewed, it cannot be further from the truth. President Abraham Lincoln, a hero to his country, actually refused to carry out several orders handed down by the Taney Court in an action called nonacquiescence. Comparing this to the present where the Court’s decisions are still at least complied with, our “sense” of polarization continues to pale against a time when the nation literally divided itself.
The Court will always run into the issue of counter-majoritarianism when its decisions run afoul of popular sentiment and preference. According to the Federalist and our Framers, that is exactly what was intended. The Court must always make the decisions it sees fit, regardless of the electorate’s mood. Their ultimate objective must be to ensure the government’s adherence to the Constitution and to correct imbalances and abuses of power.
For the continued preservation of our Republic, the independence of the highest bench, and adherence to the spirit of our Framers and the Constitution, term limits must not be enacted for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Featured image courtesy of First Liberty Institute
Web Edited by Zexuan Qu ’28
Leave a Reply