The notion that three decades on the Supreme Court is an excessively long tenure is a viewpoint that merits serious consideration, especially when examining the current state of American governance. The idea of lifetime appointments, while perhaps rooted in a desire for judicial independence, appears to be contributing to a stagnation and a disconnect from contemporary societal needs and values. This lengthy service, in many opinions, allows for the entrenchment of ideologies that are no longer representative of the nation’s evolving landscape, leading to a system that feels increasingly out of touch and, frankly, broken.
There’s a palpable sense that the entire system needs an update, a sort of “operating system” overhaul for the oldest democracy on the planet.… Continue reading
Congressman Johnny Olszewski is introducing the Reform of Bench Eligibility (ROBE) Act, proposing an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court Justices to enhance the Court’s legitimacy. This initiative aims to address concerns about politicized appointments, strategically timed retirements, and ethically questionable conduct by justices, as exemplified by recent Supreme Court rulings and their attendance at White House events. The proposed amendment seeks to restore balance and integrity to the judiciary by ensuring a more regular and less politically charged system for selecting and serving on the bench.
Read More
Representative Mike Levin, a California Democrat, has announced his co-sponsorship of the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025 (H.R. 1074), which proposes 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. The bill would establish a regular appointment schedule, with a new justice nominated every two years, and allow senior justices to continue performing judicial duties. However, the legislation faces significant constitutional hurdles, as Article III of the Constitution suggests that term limits would require a constitutional amendment. Despite Democratic support, the bill is unlikely to pass due to Republican opposition and is seen more as a political statement reflecting dissatisfaction with the court’s current ideological balance.
Read More
The recently proposed constitutional amendment by Senators Manchin and Welch to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices is a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding the court’s composition and legitimacy. This amendment aims to address concerns about the court’s perceived political nature and dwindling public trust by imposing an 18-year term limit on newly appointed justices. This would lead to a roughly biennial turnover of justices, injecting a fresh perspective into the court’s deliberations while providing a degree of predictability in judicial appointments.
The senators’ proposal is presented as a means to restore public confidence in the Supreme Court, arguing that the current system contributes to the perception of the court as a purely political entity.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker