Should the Supreme Court be reformed? The Case for Term Limits

   

Term Limits for SCOTUS/

In his 2013 book "The Liberty Amendments," Mark Levin proposes establishing 12-year term limits for justices. Under Levin’s proposal, justices would serve a single 12-year term rather than holding lifetime appointments.

    To transition to this system gradually, current justices would be grandfathered and exempt from term limits. Newly appointed justices would be restricted to 12-year terms. Levin also proposes capping the number of justices a president can appoint per 4-year term, likely to two, to phase in turnover.

    Once fully implemented, term limits would bring regular rotation of justices and new perspectives to the Court. Levin argues this would reduce the problem of justices serving into extreme old age and limit a single president’s influence.

    Term limits would also curb the the trend to "punt" legislative actions to the Supreme Court. Levin contends Congress has improperly deferred major controversies like abortion and Obamacare to the courts instead of legislating. Term limits could reinvigorate Congress to take on more responsibility for crafting compromises on divisive issues rather than relying on unilateral Court rulings.

    Critics counter that term limits would undercut judicial independence by making the Court more political - but is that possible at the current trajectory?   Levin believes 12-year limits would maintain judiciary independence while restoring crucial checks and balances between the three branches of government.

    Some argue that expanding the number of Supreme Court justices as an alternative to bring new perspectives to the Court. However, drastically increasing the size of the Court risks making it seem like a partisan institution that grows based on whichever political party holds power at the time. This could severely undermine the Court's credibility and independence. 

    Term limits would avoid the pitfalls of court packing while still achieving the goal of regular turnover on the Court. With 12-year term limits phased in gradually, justices would rotate off the bench over time in a predictable, apolitical manner. The size of the Court would remain stable, preserving its history & legitimacy. 

    While expanding the Court is an option some have proposed, Levin makes a compelling case that term limits present a superior solution for injecting fresh ideas onto the Supreme Court while avoiding partisan instability.

    As debates continue over reforming the Supreme Court, term limits provide an intriguing option for regular turnover and changes on the bench. The gradual transition plan makes the change more feasible and allows time to assess its impacts on the Court.

    What do you think?  Would some sort of term limit be better than adding justices?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Navigating Education Budget Challenges: Act 60, Taxpayer Trust, and Continuous Improvement

Image
       Vermont’s Act 60, passed in 1997, sought to make education funding more equitable across school districts through a statewide property tax system. Over 75% of school budgets now come from local property taxes. While well-intentioned, implementation of Act 60 funding formulas cultivates a temporal disconnect: towns and school boards can vote to increase spending without constituents feeling immediate tax consequences. This accountability gap has precipitated year-over-year increases in education budgets often exceeding inflation and economic growth, despite steady decreases in student populations. The unfortunate budget Vote-to-Tax gap fosters a unique dynamic: Taxpayers rarely trace rising tax burdens directly back to specific prior-year school budget decisions. This reduces voter agency and perceived value from their tax dollars. School boards experience psychological distance from tax implications their budget votes ultimately trigger . This can promote over...
Read more

Property Tax Reform for School Funding - Should VT Go Hybrid?

Image
  Rethinking Vermont's School Funding Approach Vermont currently funds K-12 education through a mix of statewide and local property taxes. About two-thirds of the $1.6 billion yearly total comes from homeowners via tax rates and formulas set at the state level. This convoluted system aims to equalize spending across districts, but creates confusion on how increasing revenues tie to per-pupil funding and outcomes. Property tax bills also provide income-based credits for affordability, but these credits lag behind current year taxes owed. This mismatch leaves many families unaware of what drives changing tax burdens. As wages and budgets feel squeezed by taxes going up faster than incomes, public trust in the school funding model has eroded.  Click here for the Joint Fiscal Office Brief on Property Tax Credit There are better approaches. Several states predominantly allocate operational funding to     schools through state income or sales taxes. Others ...
Read more

Balancing Priorities: Why We Can't Afford Tunnel Vision on Climate Change

Image
As a conservative, it's natural for concern regarding the resources of our planet.  The narrow discussion around environmental issues focusing on climate change loses focus on other pressing issues.  Systems theory highlights that one input to a system cannot be discounted nor solely blamed on an outcome....but the media hyper focus on emissions loses sight of other pressing environmental challenges that have profound impacts on the health of our ecosystems and communities.  The current scale and pace of environmental degradation is truly unprecedented - and much of it has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions despite the political landscape. Plastics & Toxins      Take the issue of plastic pollution, for instance. Our oceans are now awash with trillions of pieces of microplastic. These tiny plastic particles find their way into the food chain, with untold consequences for marine life and human health.  When was the last time you walked the s...
Read more