President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat in the Supreme Court. Trump’s pick, if confirmed, will have a long-lasting impact on the trajectory of the country; the Supreme Court holds an enormous amount of power and almost all big changes made in our country will pass through them. They have had the final say in multiple landmark decisions in our country, including Brown v. Board of Education (invalidated racial segregation in schools), Roe v. Wade (legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy), Bush v. Gore (handed George W. Bush the presidency) and King v. Burwell (upheld major provisions of the Affordable Care Act). This list goes on and will continue to grow with the changing times.
There are a couple of problems with the Supreme Court though.
First, they are old. The average age of the current eight supreme court justices is 69. There are two current justices in their 80s, one that is 78, four in their 60s and one that is 56. I do not understand how it makes sense to have two 80-year-old individuals in such an enormous position of power. When we reach old age we lose physical and cognitive abilities. Furthermore, older individuals are not in tune with a lot of society, especially as technology advances. I cannot imagine having my grandma decide on cases about encryption, surveillance, computers or anything that has to do with modern-day technology.
The second problem with the Supreme Court is that even though they aren’t supposed to be political, they clearly are. The justices don’t work for the Democratic or Republican Party, and they serve life terms to be insulated from the current political trends. However, they are products of the time they were appointed in—pretending they aren’t political ignores how they got picked for the position in the first place. No president is going to appoint a justice who disagrees with them on important issues. Trump certainly did not select someone who thinks building a wall on the Mexican border is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Trump’s pick will be able to remain on the court for their entire life and will thus become a by-product of his presidency who will linger for years after Trump leaves office.
The court should be a watch dog for the people, defending our individual rights. The three branches of government are supposed to exert checks and balances onto each other so that no single division is more powerful than another. However, the divisions of government have become increasingly muddled over time, removing many of the balances of power. Politicians know that if they can control the court by appointing justices who agree with them, then they can push laws through with very little resistance.
The Supreme Court is flawed, but there are no easy ways to reform it. Any suggested changes would receive an enormous amount of push back. One change is to limit judges’ terms to 20 years, or enforce an age cap of 65 or 70. It would be carried out for the sole reason of ensuring that court justices would be able to make decisions regarding the fast-paced changes in our country while not being left behind the times.
Having elderly, biased justices impedes progress and change. Justices serve life terms and are not supposed to be partisan. However, they are selected by presidents who obviously hold political biases. Furthermore, in serving such long terms, justices lose touch with reality and are unable to make proper decisions.
This term limit would only be a Band-Aid on a larger problem, covering it up without fixing it. The U.S. has become extremely partisan to the point where the parties have learned how to control the court system. The only way we can really reform the court is by fixing our broken two-party system.
Thomas is a senior majoring in psychology and history. What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court? Should justices hold lifelong terms, or should they be cycled out to stay current with societal momentum? Please send all questions and comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
