Judicial Ethics, Term Limits, and Supreme Court Reforms

In the ongoing discourse on judicial ethics and reform, the question often arises whether, if the Democrats were to take control of both houses of Congress, they should focus on term limits for Supreme Court justices instead of implementing court packing. This article explores the implications of such a strategy and examines the reasoning behind these different approaches.

The Importance of Judicial Ethics

One of the most pressing issues in contemporary American jurisprudence is the ethical conduct of Supreme Court justices. The idea that these individuals, who wield immense power and influence, can accept bribes or "gratuities" with impunity is deeply concerning. The public perceives this as pure and simple corruption, as the actions of these justices and their spouses often surpass the misconduct levels of even local city council members. To address these issues, it is suggested that justices be held to the same ethical standards as other public servants, thereby minimizing the corrupt practices that taint the Court's image.

Term Limits vs. Court Packing

The discussion often centers around two major strategies: term limits and court packing. Term limits, such as a 15-year limit, have been proposed to stabilize the Court and prevent undue influence by any single political party. On the other hand, court packing involves increasing the number of justices to shift the ideological balance of the Court. Both approaches are controversial and carry significant implications for the judicial system.

The notion that either judicial term limits or increasing the number of justices is primarily aimed at altering the prevailing philosophical approach of the Court from originalism to a "living document" approach is widely debated. Democrats have long understood that bypassing legislative procedures and utilizing the courts to advance their progressive agenda is more expedient than trying to win broad public support through elections. However, this strategy has limitations.

Failed Agendas and Public Perception

The progressive left has often managed to implement changes through the courts, only to see these decisions overturned by subsequent courts. Landmark cases like Dobbs v. Jackson and Loper Bright v. Raimondo demonstrate the court's ability to reverse decisions and reset the agenda. The shift to a majority of originalist and textualist justices in the Court has significantly impeded the progress of the progressive agenda.

The use of the courts for political ends often leads to a politicization of the judiciary. This can result in the Court becoming intertwined with political dynamics, potentially leading to perceptions that it is less independent and unbiased. This is a concerning development for the integrity of the legal system and the principles of a free society.

Blame and Accountability

A significant part of this issue lies with politicians who prioritize their own ends, justifying their actions through the "ends justify the means" mentality. While the left has been criticized, some Republican leadership has also been criticized for bypassing regular legislative procedures and ceding responsibilities to the bureaucratic state, rather than holding elected representatives accountable.

The progressive agenda has often been manipulated to circumvent the lack of broad public support, making the ideological outcome more significant than the public's articulated preferences. This divide between popular support and the implementation of policies through the courts highlights the broader issues of public trust and the need for transparency and accountability in government.

Conclusion

The question of whether to implement term limits or court packing remains a contentious issue. While both approaches have their merits, they also carry significant risks. The focus should be on ethical reform of the Court, ensuring that justices are held to the same standards as other public servants. Additionally, the democratic process should be respected, and the courts should serve as an independent branch of government, not a tool for political gain.