Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is introducing a bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, which would limit the high court justices to 18-year terms, while allowing presidents to appoint new justices every other year. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP/Getty Images)
'Time to Standardize and Democratize the Supreme Court': Ro Khanna Introduces Bill for Justice Term-Limits of 18 Years
"We can't face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court," says the California Democrat.
Seeking a "regular, fair process that doesn't reshape the court for decades at a time," Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday announced legislation to "fundamentally reframe the power" of the U.S. Supreme Court by establishing 18-year term limits for justices and allowing presidents to nominate two new appointees per four-year term.
"We can't face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court," said Rep. Khanna (D-Calif.) while announcing the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act (pdf).
The new bill, whose original House co-sponsors are Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.), comes as President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans rush to appoint the third associate justice of the president's term following the death last Friday of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served on the court for 27 years.
The replacement of the reliably liberal Ginsburg with yet another right-wing justice could, if successful, steer the court in a dramatically more conservative direction for decades. Such a shift would threaten--among other things--women's reproductive rights, efforts to fight catastrophic global heating, Americans' access to healthcare, and efforts to protect U.S. democracy from growing corporate power bolstered by rulings like 2010's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"Our country's top constitutional questions shouldn't be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected."
--Rep. Ro Khanna
"No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders," Khanna added. "No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance. Most importantly, our country's top constitutional questions shouldn't be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It's time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court."
Khanna noted Friday that Republican presidents have occupied the White House for 24 of the past 44 years, appointing 15 justices to the high court, while Democrats, who have held the presidency for just 20 years during that same period, have appointed just four justices.
This will be the first time that SCOTUS term limits have been proposed via legislation rather than by constitutional amendment. Advocates say such a measure could pass with simple majority votes in both houses of Congress instead of being subjected to a lengthy and uncertain amendment process.
However, some legal scholars--including some who support term limits--argue that implementing such limits can only be accomplished by constitutional amendment.
Khanna's bill seeks to avoid constitutional issues by exempting current justices, and by allowing termed-out Supreme Court justices to complete their lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary by serving on lower courts. This is already allowed--since retiring in 2009, Justice David Souter has heard over 400 cases on a Boston federal appeals court.
Both liberal and conservative justices--including current SCOTUS Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts--as well as many legal scholars support term limits.
Many SCOTUS reform advocates welcomed news of Khanna's bill.
"For the first time in U.S. history, statutory language has been introduced to accomplish what court-watchers have been saying for ages: on Supreme Court appointments, we must do better," said Gabe Roth, executive director of the advocacy group Fix the Court. "A standard appointment process, where future justices serve for a reasonable amount of time, is that better way--and one that liberals and conservatives already agree on."
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Seeking a "regular, fair process that doesn't reshape the court for decades at a time," Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday announced legislation to "fundamentally reframe the power" of the U.S. Supreme Court by establishing 18-year term limits for justices and allowing presidents to nominate two new appointees per four-year term.
"We can't face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court," said Rep. Khanna (D-Calif.) while announcing the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act (pdf).
The new bill, whose original House co-sponsors are Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.), comes as President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans rush to appoint the third associate justice of the president's term following the death last Friday of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served on the court for 27 years.
The replacement of the reliably liberal Ginsburg with yet another right-wing justice could, if successful, steer the court in a dramatically more conservative direction for decades. Such a shift would threaten--among other things--women's reproductive rights, efforts to fight catastrophic global heating, Americans' access to healthcare, and efforts to protect U.S. democracy from growing corporate power bolstered by rulings like 2010's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"Our country's top constitutional questions shouldn't be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected."
--Rep. Ro Khanna
"No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders," Khanna added. "No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance. Most importantly, our country's top constitutional questions shouldn't be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It's time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court."
Khanna noted Friday that Republican presidents have occupied the White House for 24 of the past 44 years, appointing 15 justices to the high court, while Democrats, who have held the presidency for just 20 years during that same period, have appointed just four justices.
This will be the first time that SCOTUS term limits have been proposed via legislation rather than by constitutional amendment. Advocates say such a measure could pass with simple majority votes in both houses of Congress instead of being subjected to a lengthy and uncertain amendment process.
However, some legal scholars--including some who support term limits--argue that implementing such limits can only be accomplished by constitutional amendment.
Khanna's bill seeks to avoid constitutional issues by exempting current justices, and by allowing termed-out Supreme Court justices to complete their lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary by serving on lower courts. This is already allowed--since retiring in 2009, Justice David Souter has heard over 400 cases on a Boston federal appeals court.
Both liberal and conservative justices--including current SCOTUS Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts--as well as many legal scholars support term limits.
Many SCOTUS reform advocates welcomed news of Khanna's bill.
"For the first time in U.S. history, statutory language has been introduced to accomplish what court-watchers have been saying for ages: on Supreme Court appointments, we must do better," said Gabe Roth, executive director of the advocacy group Fix the Court. "A standard appointment process, where future justices serve for a reasonable amount of time, is that better way--and one that liberals and conservatives already agree on."
Seeking a "regular, fair process that doesn't reshape the court for decades at a time," Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday announced legislation to "fundamentally reframe the power" of the U.S. Supreme Court by establishing 18-year term limits for justices and allowing presidents to nominate two new appointees per four-year term.
"We can't face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court," said Rep. Khanna (D-Calif.) while announcing the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act (pdf).
The new bill, whose original House co-sponsors are Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.), comes as President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans rush to appoint the third associate justice of the president's term following the death last Friday of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served on the court for 27 years.
The replacement of the reliably liberal Ginsburg with yet another right-wing justice could, if successful, steer the court in a dramatically more conservative direction for decades. Such a shift would threaten--among other things--women's reproductive rights, efforts to fight catastrophic global heating, Americans' access to healthcare, and efforts to protect U.S. democracy from growing corporate power bolstered by rulings like 2010's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"Our country's top constitutional questions shouldn't be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected."
--Rep. Ro Khanna
"No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders," Khanna added. "No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance. Most importantly, our country's top constitutional questions shouldn't be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It's time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court."
Khanna noted Friday that Republican presidents have occupied the White House for 24 of the past 44 years, appointing 15 justices to the high court, while Democrats, who have held the presidency for just 20 years during that same period, have appointed just four justices.
This will be the first time that SCOTUS term limits have been proposed via legislation rather than by constitutional amendment. Advocates say such a measure could pass with simple majority votes in both houses of Congress instead of being subjected to a lengthy and uncertain amendment process.
However, some legal scholars--including some who support term limits--argue that implementing such limits can only be accomplished by constitutional amendment.
Khanna's bill seeks to avoid constitutional issues by exempting current justices, and by allowing termed-out Supreme Court justices to complete their lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary by serving on lower courts. This is already allowed--since retiring in 2009, Justice David Souter has heard over 400 cases on a Boston federal appeals court.
Both liberal and conservative justices--including current SCOTUS Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts--as well as many legal scholars support term limits.
Many SCOTUS reform advocates welcomed news of Khanna's bill.
"For the first time in U.S. history, statutory language has been introduced to accomplish what court-watchers have been saying for ages: on Supreme Court appointments, we must do better," said Gabe Roth, executive director of the advocacy group Fix the Court. "A standard appointment process, where future justices serve for a reasonable amount of time, is that better way--and one that liberals and conservatives already agree on."