Throughout the history of the United States of America, many aspects of the government have grown, expanded, and changed immensely. One of the branches that has changed a great deal is the judicial branch. The Supreme Court has gone from ten Justices with two Chief Justices which were all white men to nine Justices with one Chief Justice now with three women. This major change in the Supreme Court has caused many controversies in the United States, especially with their judicial decisions being based on political leanings. Currently, the largest argument regarding the Supreme Court is whether or not to continue having life terms. Although many scholars can argue for the prolonging of life terms for United States Supreme Court Justices, there is a strong argument against life terms and for retirement ages or term limits for Supreme Court Justices. 

To begin an argument for or against life terms in the Supreme Court, one must first examine the history and controversial decisions of the Court. Because the Supreme Court has a lengthy history, it is difficult to truly point to where the partisanship in the Supreme Court really began. The beginning of the Supreme Court was when “the U.S. Supreme Court was established by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “’the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’” (Longley). Throughout the Supreme Court’s lengthy history, many decisions about important topics have been made. Most importantly, their decision to ban prayer in public schools and legalize abortion. These particular decisions are important to the argument for eliminating partisanship on the Supreme Court because each of these decisions was regarding an extremely politically dividing topic. Engel v. Vitale, the case that banned prayer in public schools and stated, “The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs,” was an exceptionally anti-religious and liberal decision (Black). Because this decision was so politically motivated and the Supreme Court was leaning liberally at the time of this decision, it accurately highlights the partisanship of the Court. Another example of the partisanship on the Supreme Court, but leaning towards the conservative was during the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.” This quote from Chief Justice Roberts expresses the conservative Court’s concern with the overstepping of the Federal Elections Commission, which is a conservative issue. This has lead to the current Court and its decisions being politically motivated as well. 

Currently, the Supreme Court is occupied by eight justices because of former Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing. The Supreme Court has four justices associated with the Republican Party and four justices associated with the Democratic Party. Therefore, the next justice appointed by President Trump will cause a shift from the past towards a conservative Supreme Court. There is also a chance President Trump will appoint more than one justice. Because Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, are 83 and 78, respectively, there is a high chance that they could pass away while Trump is in office. Conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 80, could pass away as well, therefore this could allow President Trump a chance to appoint four Supreme Court Justices. This information creates a strong argument against life terms for Supreme Court Justices.  This argument is neither liberally or conservatively motivated, it is motivated for the justice of the American people. Because the current Supreme Court is aging rapidly, this could create an extremely biased Court causing problems in the future. Because every perspective and opinion is supposed to be able to be represented in our government, having a Supreme Court leaning completely one way politically will cause the other side of political views to be completely ignored. It does not matter which way a person leans politically, he should want the United States of America to remain a fair, just, and unbiased nation; which cannot happen under a completely biased Supreme Court. 

Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution establishes life terms for United States Supreme Court Justices by saying, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office” (US Const. Article III, Sec. 1). By establishing life terms, the Founding Fathers set an immense precedent for future Supreme Court Justices. Nearly half of the Supreme Court Justices have died while still serving. Because the passing of a Justice causes there to be a stall in decisions, life terms are not ideal. When a Supreme Court Justice passes away while on the bench, it can cause extreme chaos in the Supreme Court and government in general. Because the Supreme Court turns into a stalemate between both conservative and liberal Justices when a Justice passes away, it can cause problems within the Court and the government. 

Partisanship in the Court is the biggest reason for establishing term limits or a retirement age for Supreme Court Justices. Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg expressed her political leaning and distraught over the election of President Trump outright when she said, “For the court, it could be- I don’t even want to contemplate that” (Arenberg). This expression of political beliefs is disgraceful because the Founding Fathers established the Supreme Court to be the overarching judicial power of the United States when they wrote, “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (US Const. Article III, Sec. 1).

One solution to end the partisanship or to at least lessen it in the Supreme Court are term limits or a retirement age. Before 1970, the average term for a Justice was 14.9 years, and now the average term is 26.1 years. Because of longer Supreme Court Justice terms, when a new Justice is appointed it causes extreme political turmoil and can completely sway the leaning of the Court based on whom is currently President. Most recently, when former President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Republican Senators would not even hear the nomination. This absolute lack of respect for the Founding Fathers and the United States government is absolutely apparent in this situation. Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren’s article states a realistic solution to the problem, but first expresses their theory for longer terms. They write:

A second possible cause for longer tenures-the increased politicization of the Court over the last century-may have made political motives a more important factor in Justices' retirement decisions, which could have resulted in their deciding to stay on the Court longer for strategic reasons. While it has always been recognized that the Court has had some influence on politics, in the last fifty to eighty years the Court has come to be seen as a more important player than ever before in effectuating political and social change. (Calabresi and Lindgren) 

This theory is proven and can be remedied with their proposal “for imposing on Supreme Court Justices a staggered, eighteen-year term limit, with a salary for life and an automatic right to sit on the lower federal courts for life, could theoretically be established in a variety of ways, but the only way we approve of is through passage of a constitutional amendment pursuant to Article V” (Calabresi and Lindgren). 

Because the Supreme Court makes decisions, such as legalizing abortion, that affect the entire United States of America, the public mood can be extremely persuasive for the Court when making decisions. The public mood’s effect on the Supreme Court’s decision shows how partisan based the Court truly can be. There have been several arguments, dissertations, and essays written on this topic, but no one has yet to come up with the solution. Because there is no solution yet, this argument against term limits and for retirement ages is still valid. 
