By, Sana Goyal
Baldwin High School
The Supreme Court was founded on the belief that it would act as an independant, impartial interpreter of the law, but it has far skewed from that original purpose. From life tenures to a lack of a flushed out code of ethics, the Supreme Court has many fundamental flaws, which have only been exacerbated in the years following its conception. Under the current system, the standing president has almost complete control over Supreme Court justice nominations, only needing a simple majority from the malapportioned senate to confirm their candidate. This means that the political party in power at any given moment of time has authority over the way the constitution is interpreted.
The arbitrary nature of SCOTUS justice nominations only furthers this problem because it has led to the current disproportionate political representation, with six of the nine current Supreme Court justices leaning republican. This is in contrast to the six-three, democrat-republican split that would exist in the SCOTUS, had Supreme Court justice nominations been dispersed evenly between the presidential terms. A survey conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think that the justices prioritize political ideology over impartial interpretation of the law.
When asked about this disparity Professor Kermit Roosevelt, a commissioner in the Presidential Commission for Supreme Court reform in 2021 and a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, who advocates for Supreme Court expansion, had this to say: “I mean, it's [SCOTUS] sort of squandering its legitimacy, but that's what happens when it gets so out of line with public opinion... If the court is reflecting mainstream American values, then people don't really see it as political, because things that [they] believe, [their] politics don't read so much as politics to [them]. They read more like common sense or wise decision making. So, as long as the court sort of reflects mainstream American values, people aren't upset about its politics.” Therefore, the key issue is not that the court is inherently political—which it is, inevitably so—but that it is partisan in the “wrong” direction.
To address growing concerns with the Supreme Court, in 2021, President Joe Biden formed the Presidential Commission for Supreme Court reform, which would review the state of the SCOTUS and offer up reforms/suggested amendments and changes that needed to be made, such as a code of ethics and rotating justices. No actual policy changes came from this, but it did publish a report in December 2021 that raised various questions regarding the Supreme Court. Furthermore, in July of 2023, President Joe Biden called for some major reforms to SCOTUS. One of which was term limits that would limit a Supreme Court justice’s tenure to 18 years, so that a new justice would be appointed by the president every two years.
This idea isn’t far-fetched or unheard of. In fact, internationally, many democracies have adopted systems that limit the terms of their high court justices or impose mandatory retirement ages. For example, justices in the United Kingdom must retire at 70, and, in Germany, Federal Constitutional Court judges serve non-renewable 12-year terms.
But, while term limits are a step in the right direction, much more aggressive reform is needed to address the root of the SCOTUS issues. The first amendment that needs to be made is that power
over the confirmation process needs to change hands from the senate to the house. The reason for this is that the senate is malapportioned, and is at risk of minority populations controlling the outcomes. According to Professor Roosevelt, “If it[the senate] was perfectly set up, it could be just 18% of the American people controlling the Senate. And that's not good in terms of whether they can block the president from making an appointment or whether they can push through an appointment that the majority of the American people don't like.” In order for this to happen, though, there would need to be an amendment to the constitution, which would be even more exceedingly difficult to make happen in this case because it would require at least two thirds of the senate to willingly give up part of its power.
The second part of my reform is to establish “reconfirmation” elections held every six years to ensure Supreme Court justices continue to align with public ideals. The process would start with an initial period from 2025-2031. In 2025, the Court would begin a phased replacement cycle based on staggered six-year terms. For example, in 2025, Justice Clarence Thomas would be replaced by the first Trump appointee and in 2027, Chief Justice John Roberts would be replaced by a second Trump appointee. This strategy has the added bonus of appealing to conservatives and making the reform more palatable to Republicans by giving President Elect Donald Trump the power to appoint younger conservative justices. Then, by 2031, the SCOTUS justice appointed by Trump in 2025, will have served their six years, which is when the reconfirmation elections would come into play. Voters across the country will cast a simple “Yes” or “No” vote on whether the justice should continue serving on the Supreme Court. If the majority votes “Yes,” the justice remains on the bench for another six-year term, but if the majority votes “No,” the justice is removed, and the sitting president nominates a replacement, who must go through the confirmation process outlined in the reform (via the House of Representatives).
This process empowers the American people to have a direct say in retaining or replacing justices after an initial six-year term, creating a cycle of accountability that balances judicial independence with democratic oversight. It also has the additional benefit of systemizing Supreme Court appointments, as each president will have the ability to appoint up to two justices per four year term. Opponents of the reform might try to argue that this only undermines the court by compelling justices to make decisions based on public opinion, but like Professor Roosevelt says, this isn’t really a problem because, “we don't really want it [the court] to be independent from national values.” He further goes on to support the idea of national recall elections by arguing, “The solution is to make sure that the values that the justices are employing are values that America accepts. And the best way to do that is to tie control of the court to success in national elections.”
One of the biggest obstacles this reform might face is public perception, specifically people’s irrational fear of accepting a political court. Like Professor Roosevelt says, “Impartiality is kind of a mirage or an illusia or something like that, because the court does have to make value choices.” Additionally, the current judicial system is inextricably entwined with partisanship. Despite what people want to believe, justices still vote in accordance with their party. “What do you expect a sixth three Republican court to do? They're going to act like Republicans? You know, they're going to act very Republican. The problem is that's not where America is,” claims Professor Roosevelt.
That is why, by introducing regular confirmation elections and modifying the appointment process, this reform strikes a balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability. It creates a Supreme Court that is more reflective of the American people's will while maintaining its crucial role as an impartial interpreter of the Constitution.
Comentarios