Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren: Why Supreme Court Justices Should Be Term LimitedRoundup: Historians' Take
[Mr. Calabresi is the George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, and Mr. Lindgren the Benjamin Mazur Research Professor, at Northwestern University.]
It has been almost 11 years since the last vacancy opened up on the Supreme Court. The current group of justices has served together for longer than any other group of nine justices in American history. What is more, the average tenure of justices has gotten a lot longer in the last 35 years. From 1789 until 1970, justices served an average of 14.9 years. Those who have stepped down since 1970, however, have served an average of 25.6 years. This means justices are now staying more than 10 years longer on average on the Supreme Court than they have done over the whole of American history.
The reason for this is not hard to find. Recently, the average age at time of appointment has been 53, which is the same as the average age of appointment over the rest of American history. The retirement age, however, has jumped from an average of 68 pre-1970 to 79 for justices retiring post-1970. Two of the current justices are in their 80s, two in their 70s, and four more between 65 and 69. Only one, Clarence Thomas, is younger than 65. The current Court is a gerontocracy -- like the leadership cadre of the Chinese Communist Party.
Indeed, David Garrow's scholarship has shown that decrepitude has been a problem with the last 10 justices to retire, those who left the bench from 1971-94. By some accounts, half of the last 10 retirees have been too feeble or mentally incompetent to participate fully in deliberating and deciding cases -- or even in some instances, to stay awake during the few mornings of oral arguments. While mental incompetence was rare in the first century on the Court, since 1898 it has become a regular occurrence for justices who serve more than 18 years; by one estimate about a third were mentally incompetent to serve before they finally retired.
With justices now staying 10 years longer than they have historically, vacancies are opening up a lot less often. Between 1789 and 1970 there was a vacancy on the Court once every 1.91 years. In the 34 years since the two appointments in 1971, there has been a vacancy on average only once every 3.75 years. The typical one-term president now gets to appoint only one instead of two justices, and with the recent 11-year drought of vacancies a two-term presidency could in theory go by without being able to make even a single Supreme Court appointment.
We think this is unacceptable. No powerful government institution in a modern democracy should go for 11 years without any democratic check on its membership. Nor should powerful officials hold office for an average of 25.6 years with some of them serving for 35 years or more. The rules allowing Supreme Court justices to do this are a relic of the 18th century and of pre-democratic times.
No other major country in the world allows the justices of its highest constitutional court to serve for life without a mandatory retirement age. England has a mandatory retirement age, and France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria all appoint their equivalents of our justices for a fixed term of years. In addition, none of the 50 states appoints its supreme court justices for life.
For these reasons, over the past few years we have been advocating a constitutional amendment that would limit the justices to an 18-year term with one seat opening up every two years. Tomorrow, a conference of scholars (most of whom are committed to this idea) will meet at Duke Law School to discuss various proposals for such an amendment. Our amendment would not apply to the currently sitting justices or to the current president and would go into effect when a new president takes office in 2009. In this respect, it would resemble the two-term limit on presidents that went into effect prospectively and which also restored a time-honored tradition of limited government service....
comments powered by Disqus
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Transcribed Document: Soviet Politburo Discussed CIA Billion Dollar Spy Adolf Tolkachev
- Pentagon withholds Iraq War photos showing detainee abuse
- These Rebels Have Amassed A Library From Syria’s Ruins
- Was 1916 fire at Canadian Parliament set by German saboteur?
- United Nations Calls On U.S. To Pay African Americans Reparations For Slavery
- Juan Cole says America’s inclination to turn to the military started with Manifest Destiny
- History Jobs Drop
- Paul Krugman gives credence to Robert J. Gordon's pessimism about American economic growth
- Harvard President Drew Faust Condemns Free Tuition Proposal from Outsider Overseers Ticket
- Andrew Roberts says Trump is the Mussolini of America with double the vulgarity