Supreme Court Term Limits Waste Wisdom

President Biden’s proposal to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices has sparked a significant legal debate. While it is straightforward to argue against such a measure from a legalistic standpoint, history itself provides compelling reasons to question the wisdom of term limits. If Biden’s proposal had always been in effect. Many of the most insightful judgments from our esteemed jurists might never have come to fruition. Similarly, the most influential judgments could have been stifled.

Notable Historical Figures

Consider John Marshall Harlan, who, in 1896, was in his 19th year on the bench when he issued a dissenting opinion in the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson. At a time when the Court sanctioned racial segregation in railway accommodations. Harlan stood alone in asserting that “our Constitution is color-blind.” His dissent, though in the minority at the time, later became a cornerstone for civil rights jurisprudence.

Similarly, Oliver Wendell Holmes joined the Supreme Court in 1902 and spent over two decades there. His dissent in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, a case that struck down a federal law setting minimum wages for women in Washington D.C. Showcased his deep judicial insight and dedication to evolving social issues.

Enduring Influence

Hugo Black, who completed his 18th year on the Court in 1955, continued to make significant contributions well into his tenure. His passionate defense of a free press in the New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971) case, also known as the Pentagon Papers case, underscored his belief that the press should “serve the governed, not the governors.”

Louis Brandeis, known for his early impactful defenses of personal liberty, is particularly noted for his majority opinion in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938). This decision, made in his 22nd year as a justice, overturned a longstanding federal rule and significantly shaped the legal landscape.

Federal Reserve Chair Powell Signals Caution Amidst Economic Data

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has signaled cautious optimism regarding recent economic data suggesting a potential decline in inflation.

Constitutional Framework and Judicial Independence

The U.S. Constitution’s approach to federal office terms reflects its recognition of the need for varied tenures. Articles I and II outline terms for representatives, presidents, and senators, while Article III specifies that federal judges maintain their positions “during good behaviour”—for life.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, emphasized the judiciary’s role as ‘the weakest of the three departments’. He also warned that periodic appointments could undermine judicial independence. Term limits, Hamilton argued, would erode the wisdom and stability that comes with prolonged experience on the bench.

Subscribe to Barron’s and the Wall Street Journal for a comprehensive understanding of the global market. Gain invaluable insights, refine your investment strategy, and stay ahead with real-time commentary. Subscribe now for transformative financial wisdom.