ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Shaw: Term limit the Supreme Court

"A 12-year term is what high court justices serve in countries such as Germany and South Africa," writes columnist Jim Shaw. "It would change the lousy system where presidents look for young candidates to appoint so they can stay on for decades with their extremist rulings."

Jim Shaw
Jim Shaw
We are part of The Trust Project.

It’s time to have term limits for Supreme Court justices. They should be limited to one 12-year term. Seeing how the President of the United States can only serve for eight years, 12 years is plenty for those on the high court.

Admittedly, I am writing this because I’m angry about recent Neanderthal and frightening Supreme Court decisions that are sending us back to the 1850s. Those decisions include bashing women’s reproductive rights, throwing out common sense gun control laws and climate change rules, and ignoring the separation of church and state. Not to be forgotten is the horrifying Supreme Court decision in 2013 which gutted the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. That has led to current un-American voter suppression.

Let’s get rid of lifetime Supreme Court appointments. The United States is the only developed democracy in the world that has them for its judiciary. Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that speaks to lifetime appointments. The Constitution just says justices “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” If that was truly applied, then Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh never would have been put on the Court in the first place.

Somehow, the good behavior wording has been interpreted as a lifetime appointment. That wasn’t so bad when the country was founded. That’s because life expectancy then in the U.S. was about 40. Now, it’s 77. From 1789 to 1970, the average tenure of a Supreme Court justice was 15 years. Now, many of them stay for more than 30 long years.

At least there’s some accountability in the states. North Dakota Supreme Court justices are elected to 10-year terms, but can run for re-election. There’s an even better system in Minnesota. In that state, justices are elected to six-year terms and can run for re-election, but have a mandatory retirement age of 70.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another reason we need term limits on the high court is because of the travesty of how justices make it to the Supreme Court. We now have a system of minority rule in this country. Presidents elected with far fewer votes than their opponents nominate the justices. They are often confirmed by Republican senators who represent much less than half the country. Then those justices make rulings that are out of step with the Constitution and opposed by most Americans.

CATCH UP ON SUPREME COURT NEWS
Breaking news: Democracy is not extremism.
Term limits would mean each new president making far more appointments to the court than ever before in history. Is that likely to make the court less ideological, or more?
“The U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that lawful proceedings conducted in one state are recognized by the other states," Armstrong said. "HR 8404 makes it clear that a marriage performed in one state will be recognized in another, regardless of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the couple. This bill provides assurance to Americans that their marital status won’t change based on their ZIP code."
After a list of "where as" statements, the resolution states that "the Policy Committee of the North Dakota Democratic-Non Partisan League Party will no longer support the ongoing candidacy of Mark Haugen for U.S. House of Representatives."
This Supreme Court expects legislators to legislate. We need to stop carrying on as if that's a bad thing.
Americans have lost faith in their institutions. The news media in particular. That decline in trust is the fertile soil out of which the endless rancor and violence we're currently living with grows.
This issue is complex, with well-meaning and mainstream Americans on both sides, and it deserves better than the sort of with-us-or-against-us rhetoric we're getting from the activists and politicians.
Judges and other law-enforcement officials should be dispassionate servants of the law, not political actors, and the law should be what is written, not what is interpreted by a lawyer in a robe.
In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states new power to prosecute alleged crimes by non-Natives against Natives committed on reservations. Though the immediate changes stemming from the case remain unclear, some Native sources say the implementation of this decision could mean further infringement on tribal sovereignty.
A 2014 opinion for the North Dakota Supreme Court failed to find a right to an abortion in the state Constitution.
The choice of organizing more protests, as opposed to taking meaningful action such as beginning an initiated measure campaign that could actually change state law, is a telling one.
Experts warn that simply claiming the benefits may create paper trails for law enforcement officials in states criminalizing abortion. That will complicate life for the dozens of corporations promising to protect, or even expand, the abortion benefits for employees and their dependents.
This ruling "increases the odds that you're going to see carbon capture on some of our projects," says Jason Bohrer, president of the North Dakota Lignite Energy Council.
The Supreme Court has not said that abortion is illegal. The court has said that Americans can set abortion policy for themselves through elections and legislative acts. The Supreme Court has not said that the EPA can never regulate carbon emissions, only that Congress didn't give that federal agency the authority to do what it was doing.
Jackson, 51, joins the liberal bloc of a court with a 6-3 conservative majority. Her swearing in as President Joe Biden's replacement for retiring liberal Justice Stephen Breyer came six days after the court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade landmark that legalized abortion nationwide. Breyer, at 83 the court's oldest member, officially retired on Thursday.

Don’t forget how Republicans made up a phony rule that President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, wouldn’t even get a hearing because it was a presidential election year. Their shameful hypocrisy was fully exposed when they confirmed Amy Coney Barrett during the last presidential election year.

A 12-year term is what high court justices serve in countries such as Germany and South Africa. It would provide for fresh perspectives and expertise. It would change the lousy system where presidents look for young candidates to appoint so they can stay on for decades with their extremist rulings.

In the meantime, with more alarming decisions to come, the lasting damage these biased and long-serving justices will cause is enormous. The U.S. may become unrecognizable.

Shaw is a former WDAY TV reporter and former KVRR TV news director.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

READ MORE FROM INFORUM COLUMNIST JIM SHAW
"What happened in Texas and Louisiana will happen to women in North Dakota after the state’s abortion ban goes into effect later this month," writes columnist Jim Shaw. "The fact that abortion is still legal in neighboring Minnesota will be of little help."

Related Topics: U.S. SUPREME COURT
Opinion by Jim Shaw
InForum columnist Jim Shaw is a former WDAY TV reporter and former KVRR TV news director.
What to read next
The story starts in the summer of 1885.
Ditterich Mercantile recently opened to fill a need for a grocery store in Vergas, Minnesota. It's an example of community innovation and passion.
A summer trip offered a much greater appreciation of the vastness of God’s creation on earth, while also putting things into perspective.
Something somewhat similar happened in North Dakota in 2014.