Calls for high court term limits grow louder

Not long after a divided U.S. Supreme Court halted the Florida recount vote in the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, calls began to mount for term limits for federal judges.

Much of the rhetoric came from the left.

Fifteen years later, the conversation continues, this time from the right.

Since early spring — and before last week's court rulings on the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage — at least four of the 14 Republican presidential candidates have called for stronger checks on the federal judiciary.

The candidates, as well as legal scholars from across the political spectrum, say some form of term limits is necessary because justices are serving longer on the court than they have in the past. The longer service means justices are likely to become unaccountable to the public, complacent and less productive, backers of the idea say.

"The feeling is the court is quite old and we're not getting people who are still at their prime," said James Lindgren, a professor at Northwestern University Law School in Evanston, Ill., and an advocate of term limits who has written several papers on the issue. "When people age, they lose some of their vigor."

Paul D. Carrington, a retired law professor from Duke University in North Carolina and another expert on the issue, said in the past two decades, the justices' workloads have been cut to about 75 cases a year. Before that, they issued decisions in 250 or more cases a year.

The justices "are insulated from political accountability," Carrington said. "They are understandably full of themselves. It is something very much worthy of attention."

Others have differing ideas.

In 2014, Columbia Law School sponsored a debate on the issue between Lindgren and Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor. During the debate, Merrill said term limits could erode the public's view of the court's legitimacy by associating justices to the outcome of contested elections for the president, according to a Columbia media release about the debate.

The issue of term limits for justices comes up every few years, said Mark Kende, a constitutional law professor at Drake University in Des Moines. But while numerous constitutional experts support the idea, "it hasn't gotten a lot of political traction. It would likely take some sort of crisis for (the idea) to pick up steam."

What's being said on the trail

On the campaign trail, Republicans Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and Ben Carson have called for term limits for federal judges. Ted Cruz has proposed a Constitutional amendment that would allow for judicial retention elections, similar to what now occurs in Iowa for its state judges, including those on the Supreme Court.

In 2011, during Rick Perry's first run for president, the then-governor of Texas said it was time to end lifetime appointments to the bench.

The idea is not new.

Even before the founding of the United States, some, including Thomas Jefferson, abhorred the thought of federal judges being appointed to life terms and instead suggested renewable terms of four to six years, Lindgren wrote in one of his papers.

According to experts, the U.S. is the only developed western country that has no limits on how long federal judges serve.

Justices had served an average of 15 years, Lindgren said. "These days, they are serving about a decade longer." He said that some research has shown that the longer officials serve, the less reflective they are of the general public's views.

How could things change?

One idea promoted roughly 10 years ago by about three dozen nonpartisan legal scholars, including Carrington, called for 18-year-term limits for justices. Once fully implemented, the president would make a Supreme Court appointment every two years. After a justice served 18 years, he or she would move to senior status and only hear cases when there are vacancies on the court.

The nine most junior judges would hear cases and issue opinions. Carrington said the proposal could be passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.

Others believe a proposal must be approved through a Constitutional amendment. Some, including Huckabee, say if Congress isn't willing to pass a Constitutional amendment, one could be passed at a Convention of the States. Any proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

A Convention of the States "is the one way the people have ultimate power over their government," Huckabee said. "I think we are at that place where a Convention of the States is an appropriate mechanism. Support for it is growing by the day."

The issue resonates with some Iowans.

"Absolutely," said Marilyn Brown of Des Moines, who attended the grand opening of Huckabee's Iowa office this week. "Why should the president be the only one with term limits?"

Said Robert Leners of Ayrshire: "The justices don't need to be in a position permanently. They become too insulated."

Aaron Sewell of West Des Moines said he doesn't support term limits for federal judges but understands why there is support for the idea. "A lot in the public see the judges as becoming too powerful," said Sewell, 26, who volunteers for the Polk County Republicans.

Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, in a statement said that while "lifetime judicial appointments aren't perfect, the system is an important part of our constitutional design, which has thrived for more than 200 years. Any proposal to change it warrants the high degree of scrutiny required of amendments to our founding charter."

FACTOIDS

• Average age of the nine current U.S. Supreme Court justices: 69.6 years

Average tenure:

• 1789-1970: 14.9 years
• Since 1970: 26.2 years

Average age when left office:

• 1789-1970: 68.3 years
• Since 1970: 78.9 years

Source: James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School

What does U.S. Constitution say?

Article III, Section 1. of the U.S. Constitution says that: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."