Opinion: The Supreme Court needs term limits

They would make the current system fairer — and tone down the intensity of the confirmation process. View in [Browser]( | Add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book. [The New York Times]( [The New York Times]( Tuesday, September 18, 2018 [NYTimes.com/Opinion »]( [David Leonhardt] David Leonhardt Op-Ed Columnist No other major democracy has lifetime appointments to its highest court. Only the United States does, and it creates all kinds of problems. For one, our system often does not respect the will of the people. Rather than the Supreme Court’s makeup being determined by elections over many years, it’s based on a combination of those elections and the randomness of how long justices live. Jimmy Carter was unable to make [a single nomination to the court]( because no justice died or retired during his four-year presidency. Richard Nixon filled four seats during his five-and-a-half years as president. “The policy future of the country,” [Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute]( has written, “depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society.” This unfairness born of randomness isn’t the only problem. Given the deep partisan polarization in America, lifetime appointments have also turned confirmations into epic political battles. That’s why the Brett Kavanaugh process feels so momentous. It’s why the Merrick Garland process — or the lack of one — still enrages so many people. “It makes the stakes too high,” the political scientist Lee Drutman [wrote this summer in Vox](. “So here’s a simple idea to dial down some of the destructive warfare of the Supreme Court confirmation process: term limits for Supreme Court justices.” Yes, indeed. Term limits for the court are an excellent idea. It would take a constitutional amendment, but that’s O.K. The United States has already amended its Constitution 27 times — or an average of about once every nine years. We are overdue for at least one more amendment. The most appealing idea to me is staggered 18-year terms on the court, with each four-year presidential term automatically bringing two appointments. Such a system would be more consistent with democratic principles. It would have several ancillary benefits, too. Aging justices would no longer hang on to their jobs past the point when they should (which has been a real problem in the past). And as Ornstein notes, highly qualified candidates in their late 50s and early 60s — who are now largely ignored by presidents — would be considered for the court. There would still be some details to work out, such as the transition from the current system to the new one. The new law would also need a mechanism to prevent the opposing party in the Senate from denying a president a justice. But all of that is workable. The current system began, obviously, in the 18th century, when both politics and human lifespans were very different. It’s time for a change. The document release. President Trump took another outrageous step to protect himself yesterday, releasing a set of documents from the Russia investigation that have the potential to compromise American intelligence sources. Both [Asha Rangappa]( a former F.B.I. agent, and [Representative Adam Schiff]( explain why the move is damaging. The full Opinion report, with much more commentary on the Supreme Court, follows. [Should Brett Kavanaugh Withdraw?]( Erin Schaff for The New York Times By FRANK BRUNI AND ROSS DOUTHAT The political interest of the country might be better served with a nominee who didn’t have to be confirmed under a cloud of suspicion. Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination [#BrettToo?]( By THE EDITORIAL BOARD The Senate Judiciary Committee is right to reopen hearings on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation after a claim of sexual assault. Op-Ed Columnist [Boys Will Be Supreme Court Justices]( By MICHELLE GOLDBERG Kavanaugh’s accuser is credible. Will it matter? OP-Ed Columnist [Kavanaugh and the Politics of Bad Faith]( By PAUL KRUGMAN Why the modern G.O.P. keeps abandoning principles it claims to honor. Letters [The Assault Accusation Against Kavanaugh]( The accusation has readers debating whether adults should be held accountable for possible youthful transgressions and drunken behavior. [Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right]( [Anita F. Hill, right, is sworn in to testify before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas by Chairman Joseph Biden in October 1991.]( Anita F. Hill, right, is sworn in to testify before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas by Chairman Joseph Biden in October 1991. Arnie Sachs/picture-alliance -- dpa, via Associated Press By ANITA HILL The Senate Judiciary Committee has a chance to do better by the country than it did nearly three decades ago. [What I Saw When I Rode Out Florence]( By TAYLOR BROWN A storm’s violence, and its aftermath. [Trump Is Making America Great Again]( By TAIGE JENSEN Just not the way he thinks. ADVERTISEMENT Opinion, live on stage. Come to The New York Times Opinion Live On Stage, a new subscriber event that will bring you raucous fun and necessary wisdom. Join Lindy West, Kaitlyn Greenidge and Maeve Higgins on Sept. 28 for an evening of stand-up, storytelling and conversation, hosted by Rachel Dry, editor of the Sunday Review. Get 15% off of tickets with code OPINION. CONTRIBUTING OP-ED [Bugs, Weeds, Gophers: A Trump-TV Antithesis Tackles Real Problems]( By SARAH VOWELL “Montana Ag Live” offers taxpayers a speck of reassurance that a republic administered by a fair, competent and good-humored bureaucracy might still exist. More in Opinion [A Dress Rehearsal for Our Deaths]( By BARI WEISS Yom Kippur asks us to look our mortality in the face. Can we sustain the stare? [The U.S. Can’t Punish the Palestinians Into Negotiating]( By DANA H. ALLIN AND STEVEN SIMON Diplomacy as coercion goes against everything American foreign policy stands for. [The Federal Agency That Fuels the Opioid Crisis]( By LEO BELETSKY AND JEREMIAH GOULKA The Drug Enforcement Administration has proved itself incompetent for decades. Fixes [A Crazy, Murky System for Pricing H.I.V. Drugs]( By TINA ROSENBERG H.I.V. therapy in America costs hundreds of times what the same therapy costs elsewhere. But that may be starting to change. SIGN UP FOR THE OP-DOCS NEWSLETTER Find out about new [Op-Docs]( read discussions with filmmakers and learn more about upcoming events. ADVERTISEMENT [Who Is Winning the Trade War?]( By PATRICK CHAPPATTE Definitely not American consumers. HOW ARE WE DOING? We’d love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to [leonhardt@nytimes.com](mailto:leonhardt@nytimes.com?subject=Opinion%20Today%20Newsletter%20Feedback). FOLLOW OPINION [Facebook] [FACEBOOK]( [Twitter] [@nytopinion]( [Pinterest] [Pinterest]( Get more [NYTimes.com newsletters »](  | Get unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. [Subscribe »]( ABOUT THIS EMAIL You received this message because you signed up for NYTimes.com's Opinion Today newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Manage Subscriptions]( | [Change Your Email]( | [Privacy Policy]( | [Contact]( | [Advertise]( Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018