Does Supreme Court Need Term Limits?

As Democrats do whatever they can to prevent the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, there is a renewed call for establishing term limits for Supreme Court justices.

There are several things that need to be understood before term limits for Supreme Court justices are established.

First and foremost, everyone who claims that Supreme Court Justices serve for life don’t understand or have never read the US Constitution which states in Article III, Section 1:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” [emphasis mine]

Trending: The (IN)Equality Act: How We Got Here, and What We Do About It

Please tell me where it says anything about serving for life or until they retire? No, it says they shall hold their offices during GOOD BEHAVIOR, which means as long as they rule based upon what the Constitution and federal law says, not what their agenda wants it to say.

When any member of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, starts ruling based upon their personal agendas, they are no longer serving in good behavior and therefore should be removed from the bench.

If this part of the Constitution was read more often and put into action, Justices Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor should all have been removed from the bench.

The second thing that Democrats need to consider is that if they enacted term limits for Supreme Court justices, Ginsberg and Breyer would have been gone years ago. Ginsberg has been the champion of socialist, anti-American agenda since her appointment to the high court in 1993, by then President Bill Clinton. And Breyer is another liberal agenda driven Justice who has been on the bench since 1994, also being appointed by Bill Clinton.

Therefore, term limits would hurt the cause of Democrats as much as it would hurt the cause of Republicans. However, something has to be done to reign in the out of control judiciary. Whether it be changing how they obtain their office, limiting their terms of office, or even limiting their powers, a change has to be made and it needs to be made now.

Since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, there have been 27 amendments added to the Constitution. In 1804, the 12th Amendment was ratified which dealt with the manner of choosing a President and Vice-President. In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the way U.S. Senators were elected. The 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933 which reset the terms of the President and Vice-President. And in 1951, the 22nd Amendment limited the number of terms a President could serve.

With these legal precedents already set in place, it is time we all urge our U.S. Representatives and Senators to pass a new Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Amendment XXVIII) which should read something like this:

  1. Limit the terms of office of all members of the federal judiciary to 3-year terms, not to exceed 3 consecutive terms. Since the current U.S. Supreme Court consists of 9 members, the terms would be staggered so that each year, 3 seats on the Court would be up for appointment.
  2. Limit the powers of the federal judiciary so that it cannot nullify the will of the majority of the people. Based upon the Preamble of the Constitution that opens with We the People, the ultimate power needs to be with the people and not the courts.
  3. Provide for a public review of all federally appointed judges and courts. A single webpage would be created on the Internet that would regularly monitor all federal courts and rulings and the judges involved in those rulings.
  4. Provide for a means to uphold Article, III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that states: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. When a member of the federal courts is not acting in good behavior or for the will of the majority of the people, that said member of the federal court be subject to immediate review by the U.S. House of Representatives. Said review would follow the same rules of impeachment as laid out for other federal offices in the U.S. Constitution.

America can no longer afford to allow federal and Supreme Court justices to promote their personal agendas against the will of the people of the United States. Judicial reform is not only necessary, but has been mandated because of the actions of so many liberal judges.



The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.