Join former Senator Jeff Flake, law professors Cristina Rodríguez and Jamal Greene, and ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions as they tackle the future of the Supreme Court. They debate the contentious idea of term limits for justices, weighing potential benefits against risks of politicization. The conversation delves into judicial independence, external ethics codes, and the implications of expanding the court. The guests also address the striking trust gap between political parties and explore historical factors affecting the court’s legitimacy.
Public trust in the Supreme Court has plummeted to around 40%, necessitating thoughtful reforms to restore its legitimacy.
Proposals for term limits aim to regularize appointments and reflect societal changes, though critics warn of potential politicization of the Court.
The discussion on expanding the Supreme Court highlights concerns over political manipulation and the balance of diverse perspectives within the judiciary.
Deep dives
Declining Trust in the Supreme Court
Public trust in the Supreme Court has significantly declined, dropping from a historical high of 62% approval to around 40%. This erosion of confidence raises concerns about the institution's effectiveness and its perceived legitimacy among the populace. To address this issue, the podcast hosts a debate exploring various reforms aimed at restoring public confidence in the court. The necessity of these reforms is particularly critical as the Supreme Court's decisions have profound implications on American society and governance.
The Case for Term Limits
Some debaters advocate for implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices, proposing an 18-year term to ensure a regularized appointment process. This would allow each president to appoint two justices per term, reflecting electoral outcomes more directly and preventing an overconcentration of power in any single justice. The current lifetime tenure often leads to a stark imbalance, as seen in the varying numbers of justices appointed by presidents over their terms. By introducing term limits, proponents argue the court can become more reflective of societal changes and political landscapes over time.
Opposition to Term Limits
Opponents of the term limits proposal argue that such a change could inadvertently politicize the Court further, as justices might time their retirements to coincide with favorable political climates. They maintain that the current average term of around 16 years is sufficient and that the appointment process could end up favoring partisan agendas. The argument suggests that one party could potentially dominate the Court if the appointment schedule aligns with political victories, eroding judicial independence rather than preserving it. Furthermore, maintaining life tenure is seen as a means of ensuring stability and continuity within the judiciary.
Debating Court Expansion
The debate also addresses the question of whether Congress should expand the Supreme Court. Some argue that increasing the number of justices could enhance the diversity of perspectives and ease the caseload, allowing for more nuanced decision-making. Conversely, others caution that such expansion might lead to further politicization, as parties might manipulate the court’s size to align with their interests. The historical context of the Court's size, established in 1869, adds to the complexity of the discussion, with concerns about consistency and the potential for back-and-forth adjustments based on political tides.
The Importance of Ethics in the Judiciary
The necessity for external ethics codes in the Supreme Court arises as a crucial issue, with many arguing that justices should be held to the same ethical standards as other federal judges. Current practices surrounding recusals and conflicts of interest are scrutinized, emphasizing that a lack of transparency can undermine public confidence. While some assert that the Court should maintain independence and self-regulate its ethics, the inclusion of external oversight is suggested to enhance accountability. Finding a suitable mechanism for enforcement, such as a panel of peers, may help in restoring trust in the judicial process.
In recent years, multiple proposals have been made to change how the U.S. Supreme Court operates in its current form. Would these reforms help – or hurt? What is the future of the highest court in the land? In partnership with Johns Hopkins University as part of our inaugural “Hopkins Forum”, our featured guests will discuss term limits, expanding the Supreme Court, and whether external ethics codes should be applied.
Our Guests:
Ambassador Jeff Flake, Former Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law at Columbia Law School; Supreme Court Commentator
Cristina Rodríguez, Former Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States; Professor at Yale Law School
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Former U.S. Attorney General and Senator
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
