SAT . Congressman Mike Levin Pushes 18-Year Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices, Calling for Fairness and Stability
viết tôi bào báo có nội dung trong ảnh
4
Congressman Mike Levin Pushes 18-Year Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices, Calling for Fairness and Stability
A renewed debate over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court is gaining momentum after Congressman Mike Levin publicly voiced strong support for legislation that would impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices — a dramatic shift from the current system of lifetime appointments.
In a statement circulating widely online, Levin declared his pride in co-sponsoring a bill that would fundamentally reshape how the nation’s highest court operates.
“I’m proud to cosponsor a bill to set 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices,” Levin said.
“An 18-year term, with one new justice appointed every two years, will bring balance and predictability. No more strategic retirements. Just a steady, fair process that restores trust.”
How the Proposal Would Work
Under the plan backed by Levin:
- Supreme Court justices would serve a single, non-renewable 18-year term
- One new justice would be appointed every two years
- The system would eliminate the ability for justices to time retirements strategically based on political advantage
Supporters argue that this structure would maintain judicial independence while ensuring regular turnover, preventing any one president from disproportionately reshaping the Court due to chance vacancies.
Restoring Public Trust
Public confidence in the Supreme Court has declined in recent years amid contentious rulings and sharply divided ideological blocs. Levin and other advocates believe predictable appointments could help reduce political gamesmanship and lower the stakes of each nomination battle.
“Lifetime appointments made sense centuries ago,” one legal reform advocate said, “but today they’ve turned Supreme Court confirmations into all-out political wars.”
Levin emphasized that the proposal is not about punishing current justices, but about modernizing the system to reflect today’s political and social realities.
Support and Opposition
Progressive groups and court reform advocates have praised the idea, calling it a measured alternative to more aggressive proposals like court expansion. Many see term limits as a compromise that preserves the Court’s authority while making it more accountable to democratic norms.
Critics, however, argue that lifetime appointments protect judicial independence and warn that term limits could expose justices to political pressure near the end of their service. Some constitutional scholars also question whether the change would require a constitutional amendment.
A Growing National Conversation
Despite legal and political hurdles, the proposal is gaining traction among Democrats and reform-minded voters. Levin’s message — capped with a bold “I SUPPORT THIS 100%!” — reflects a growing sentiment that the Supreme Court should evolve with the times.
As debate continues in Congress and across the country, one thing is clear: judicial reform is no longer a fringe idea, but a central issue in the fight over the future of American democracy.
