Recent polling released by NBC News shows that only 22% of Americans have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the wake of that growing unpopularity, a new proposal in Congress would amend the Constitution to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. Democratic Rep. Johnny Olszewski of Maryland joins "The Takeout" to discuss.
18 years is too long. The longer a person is allowed to keep authority, the greater the odds of corruption become. I have proposed 10 year terms in the past, but still feel uncomfortable about letting anyone have that much time.
People have told me that justices are supposed to stay a long time, to offer stability and to be free of political campaigns. However, the longer the Trump Regime operates, the greater disbelief that I have in long-held offices. To me, it feels like that I was told lies by the people who opposed term and age limits.
I support 18 years, it is better than lifetime appointment.
I would also support 9 years per term, with no limit on number of terms, but requiring full process (including Senate consultation and approval) for re-appointments.
The problem I see with shorter terms is more opportunity for a corrupt executive branch to pack the court with corrupt, or at least highly political, justices. With 18 year terms they could be staggered out so one justice every 2 years would reach the end of their term and need to be replaced, limiting that to 2 justices per presidential term.
But, with shorter terms, they also get reviewed/replaced more often, in fact with 9 year terms, they get at most 2 executives / 2 senates safe.