Op-Ed: Why America Needs Supreme Court Term Limits

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, now the court's second-longest-serving justice, "could serve on the court for half a century," Jesse Wegman writes in a New York Times op-ed, noting that ought to worry Americans no matter their politics. Wegman, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, highlights the recent pattern of justices routinely serving three decades or more—far longer than the roughly 15 years that used to be typical and significantly longer than judges in other democracies. To stress his point, Wegman notes that when Thomas was sworn in in 1991, "nearly half of Americans alive today were not yet born."

Lifetime tenure, designed in the 18th century to insulate justices from political pressure, operates much differently in a world of doubled life expectancy and sharpened partisan incentives, Wegman writes, arguing it encourages favors that win a justice's allegiance "for decades to come." Wegman instead backs an 18-year term limit, enacted by statute, with a new justice appointed every two years and departing justices shifted to "senior" status. He argues this would better align the court with voters' choices, cool confirmation battles, and curb the strategic gamesmanship seen with successions. Plus, the public and some Republicans are on board, he writes. For his full argument, read the piece at the Times.