Senator Joe Manchin proposes a constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court justices’ terms to 18 years, aiming to restore public trust in the nation’s highest court.
At a Glance
- Senators Joe Manchin and Peter Welch propose 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices
- New justices would be appointed every two years, maintaining nine seats on the bench
- Current justices would be exempt and could serve for life
- The amendment seeks to reduce political battles and restore public confidence
- Constitutional change faces significant hurdles for implementation
Manchin’s Proposal for Supreme Court Reform
In a bold move to address growing concerns about the politicization of the Supreme Court, outgoing Senator Joe Manchin has introduced a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on future justices. The proposal, co-sponsored by Senator Peter Welch, would set 18-year terms for new Supreme Court appointees while allowing current justices to retain their lifetime appointments.
The amendment aims to create a system where a new justice would be appointed every two years, ensuring regular turnover on the bench while maintaining the current nine-seat structure established by the Judiciary Act of 1869. This change would potentially reduce the intense political battles that have come to surround Supreme Court nominations in recent years.
“I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court. The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land,” said Senator Manchin.
I’m proud to introduce legislation with @SenPeterWelch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court. MORE: https://t.co/fSzh606l4a
— Senator Joe Manchin (@Sen_JoeManchin) December 9, 2024
Addressing Public Concerns and Political Tensions
Manchin’s proposal comes at a time when public confidence in the Supreme Court has been waning. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe the justices are influenced by their personal ideologies rather than impartial legal interpretations. The Annenberg Public Policy Center reported a significant 22-point drop in confidence in the court from 2019 to 2022.
The proposal is presented as a bipartisan effort to reduce political gamesmanship and restore trust in the judicial system. It addresses concerns that have arisen from recent contentious confirmation processes, such as that of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the controversy surrounding the nomination of Merrick Garland during President Obama’s tenure.
Challenges and Constitutional Considerations
While the proposed amendment has garnered attention, it faces significant hurdles. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. This high bar ensures that any changes to the fundamental structure of government, including the judiciary, reflect a broad national consensus.
“Taking action to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans,” said Welch.
Currently, Article III of the U.S. Constitution allows justices to serve for life, subject only to impeachment. This longstanding tradition has been viewed as a safeguard for judicial independence, insulating the court from political pressures. Manchin’s proposal seeks to balance this independence with the need for regular renewal of judicial perspectives.
Looking Ahead
As Senator Manchin prepares to leave office, having not sought reelection, this proposal represents a significant attempt to leave a lasting impact on the American judicial system. The debate over Supreme Court reform is likely to continue, reflecting broader discussions about the role of the judiciary in American democracy and the balance between stability and responsiveness in our highest institutions.
Whether this proposal gains traction or not, it has reignited important conversations about the structure and function of the Supreme Court in contemporary American society. As the nation continues to grapple with issues of judicial independence, political polarization, and public trust in institutions, the debate over Supreme Court reform is likely to remain a significant topic in the years to come.
