When the Framers drafted the Constitution, they created a judiciary branch where justices would serve for life. In recent years, there has been growing support for a change in the constitutional system to create term limits for members of the Supreme Court.  

Those who argue that the Supreme Court should have term limits argue that the current system is not democratic. They contend that Justices can be on the Court for many decades, and that this means they do not always represent the political beliefs of the people at any given time. They claim that term limits will help make the process of appointing Justices to the bench less partisan as the stakes will be lower when both parties know the appointee will serve for a limited time. 

Those who argue that the Supreme Court should not have term limits, and should serve lifetime appointments, argue that making this change would harm our constitutional system. They claim that lifetime appointments ensure that judges can make judgements free from external pressures and remain more detached from the passions and whims of the people. They contend that a system with increased turnover of judges would make appointments more partisan, not less, because the Court would reflect the cycles of politics. They also argue that tying the Court closer to political elections, would reduce the legitimacy of the institution in the eyes of Americans. 

So, what do you think? Should the Supreme Court Have Term Limits? Students can answer Yes, it should; No, it should not; or a nuanced answer in between! Be sure to submit your answers by October 10th to have a chance at winning this week’s contest.