        One of the government branches that has changed a great deal since the beginning of the United States 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. There is a strong argument for retirement ages or term limits for Supreme Court Justices, including arguments such as the effect on controversial Court decisions, , the result of a  Justice passing while serving on the Court, the influence of the public mood, and a the potential impact one President can possess.

        To begin an argument 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 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” (Staff). 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, 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 (Engle v. Vitale). 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. This supports the argument against life terms for Supreme Court Justices regarding partisanship being perpetuated by life terms. 

Another example of the partisanship on the Supreme Court, but leaning towards the conservative side was during the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion, “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” (McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n).  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. This political motivation is the direct result of life terms, which is why life terms need to be terminated and replaced by term limits or retirement ages. 

        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. 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” (Staff). 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” (Staff). Because of this establishment of the unbiased Supreme Court, when Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg went against this she was acting in reckless abandon. The only reason why Justice Bader-Ginsberg would think this was okay would be because she has nothing to lose. Since she is given the bubble of a life term, Justice Bader-Ginsberg assumes that she can say anything politically motivated she desires. This should not be the case, therefore the Supreme Court needs term limits. 

Another example of why term limits should be put into place is the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts served ten years, which is the longest ever served by a Supreme Court Chief Justice. He is described as a “cunning strategist and a leader willing to defy customs and traditions that buttress the Court’s legitimacy” (Aron).  Roberts has exercised his power substantially through his hearing of and decisions on cases. His Court is highly business-focused, especially on campaign finance. The biggest decision they have made on campaign finance has affected campaigning extensively. Based on the current nominees, Roberts court will continue to be business and financially focused. 

This argument was extended when Joseph Daniel Ura and  Carla M. Flink “argue that the Court may seek legitimacy through greater unanimity and discuss how the leadership of the chief justice can facilitate that effort.” This problem was also mentioned in an article when Justin Crowe writes, “The combination of demographic factors, such as increased lifespan and improved medical technology, with political factors, such as the “enormous increase in the power and saliency of the Court’s decision-making” have resulted in justices who tend to serve longer, who are more likely to extend their tenures into their advanced years, and who are far more strategic about their retirement decisions” (Crowe). This is just another example of how politically motivated and strategic Supreme Court Justices are about their retirement. 

        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. This argument that the public mood influences the Supreme Court was researched and expressed when Isaac Unah wrote, “Justices respond less strongly to public opinion when the Court is highly polarized and when the legal issues to be decided are highly politically salient” (Unah).  They use both qualitative and quantitative methods, such as logistic regression analysis to show the relationship between public mood and Supreme Court Justices’ votes as well as examining Justice Harry Blackmun’s papers in the Library of Congress. The examination of Justice Blackmun’s personal papers is done to attempt to find a switch from attitudinal posture to public mood posture. 

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. Amending the Constitution and requiring term limits or a retirement age, is the only valid option to stop the current partisanship on the Supreme Court. 

 
