Lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices degenerates into tool for political strife

The separation of powers, particularly the independence of the judiciary, is considered a major driving force behind the U.S.' rise to become a superpower. A key factor was granting lifetime tenure to the nine Supreme Court justices, ensuring they could make decisions according to their conscience. Behind this were presidents who respected the judiciary's decisions even when they disagreed and the wise decisions of some justices who voluntarily stepped down when the time was right.

U.S. President Joe Biden has expressed his intention to overhaul the current composition of the Supreme Court, where six of the nine justices have conservative leanings, by proposing legislation to reduce the justices' terms to 18 years. Despite knowing that the bill is unlikely to pass through Congress due to opposition from the Republican majority in the House, he is pushing the issue into the public arena. This move is largely aimed at rallying progressive voters ahead of the November election, in response to the Supreme Court's decisions to overturn abortion rights and affirmative action policies, as well as a series of favorable rulings for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Candidate Donald Trump also exemplifies hypocrisy. In February 2016, when conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, then-President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, as the new Supreme Court justice. Trump vehemently opposed the idea, arguing that a president in their final year of office should not make a lifetime appointment. The Republican Party, which held the majority in Congress at the time, also blocked Obama's nomination. However, in September 2020, just four months before his term ended, Trump swiftly appointed the 48-year-old conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a progressive icon.

The behavior of some Supreme Court justices has also been unseemly. Clarence Thomas, the most senior of the nine justices, has faced criticism for accepting multiple instances of lavish hospitality and for his wife Virginia's denial of the 2020 election results, which have tarnished the honor of the judiciary. After 33 years as a justice and numerous controversies, is it necessary to guarantee a lifetime appointment to this 76-year-old justice? Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito has stirred political bias controversy by displaying an inverted American flag at his home, a symbol associated with disputing the 2020 election results.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was praised during her lifetime for her rulings on gender equality, has also faced posthumous criticism for missing the right time to step down. In 2014, she refused to resign despite then-President Obama encouraging her to do so. Progressives are particularly frustrated that she passed away during the Trump administration, which allowed Amy Coney Barrett to take her place and further shift the Supreme Court towards conservatism. Some are now calling for Sonia Sotomayor, the oldest of the three progressive justices at 70, to resign during President Biden's remaining term to allow the appointment of a younger progressive justice.

It is reasonable to argue for changing the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices, a system adopted when the average life expectancy of Americans was only 38 years, to better align with contemporary times. However, if those in power exploit this change for partisan purposes and the justices themselves fail to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the "nine pillars of wisdom," then reducing their terms would be futile. The current Supreme Court seems to exemplify the crisis that American democracy is facing.