David Harsanyi on Why the Supreme Court Doesn't Need Term Limits


Well-known political scientist Norm Ornstein has come up with a way to deal with our dawdling government: term limiting Supreme Court justices. It's hardly a new idea among those on the left who believe that a bunch of old codgers are holding up progress by taking all things too literally.
But this should be about the long game, David Harsanyi argues. It's pretty clear that through lifetime appointments, the Founding Fathers wanted to shield judges from the political pressures of the day. An excellent byproduct of having ancient, long-serving justices is that they are far likelier to be impervious to fleeting populist bugaboos and contemporary preferences.
Justices may be bewildered by technology, but on the bright side, some of them still believe that protecting free speech is more vital to a liberal state than sticking it to some plutocratic oilmen.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?