Progressive group launches six-figure ad campaign for Supreme Court term limits

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

01/31/24 5:00 AM ET


The progressive activist group Stand Up America launched a six-figure ad campaign advocating for Supreme Court term limits on the 18th anniversary of Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Along with spending on a six-figure digital advertising campaign, the group will also launch Wednesday a mobile billboard featuring Justice Clarence Thomas and Alito along with the message “Past Their Shelf Life – Supreme Court Term Limits Now,” according to a press release reviewed by The Hill.

“No one deserves power for life, and that is why Stand Up America is calling for Supreme Court term limits on the 18th anniversary of Justice Alito’s confirmation,” Stand Up America Executive Director Christina Harvey said in a statement. “49 out of 50 states have either term limits, elections, or age limits for their highest courts. It’s time for Congress to follow suit by creating term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The billboard will be in the Capitol Hill area at 8 a.m. EST and will drive near the Supreme Court and other D.C. locations. Similar to the billboard messaging, the organization will launch national ads on Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook in hopes of engaging grassroots support that would fuel more pressure to pass term limits for justices serving in the nation’s highest court. The organization’s community has sent over 90,000 emails in support of enforcing term limits for Supreme Court justices, according to the group.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4438912-progressive-group-launches-six-figure-ad-campaign-for-supreme-court-term-limits/

[3Hotdogs]

1. Wouldn't this require a Constitutional amendment?

[KS Toronado]

2. I believe it would, where's our in-house lawyers?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Article III, Sect. 1 only says this -

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

And that has been stretched into "life-time". I expect in these current times, if that court had been "9-0 liberal Justices", the "originalists" would argue that "good behaviour" says nothing about the length of a "term" at all (including "life-time" ), but merely indicates that the Justice does not violate the law/commit a crime or otherwise act out while in the position.

[brooklynite]

4. It has been argued that life tenure doesn't necessarily mean holding the same judicial role....

....and that a SC Justice could be moved to another judicial post after a fixed term of office.

[sarisataka]

14. Counter argument:

The Constitution specifically designates the length of terms for President and Congress. If the framers intended to have SCOTUS justices serve for other than life, they would have specified a length of service to another judicial post.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Counter counter argument

Article I

(snip)

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power

(snip)

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

So since judges and Justices are "officers".... and there is that "all other powers vested" thingy... then...

[sarisataka]

16. I knew I would get called on that

However the decision over whether Article 1, Section 8 applied to SCOTUS term limits would be decided by... SCOTUS.

Persuasive arguments can be made for both views. I don't think the framers envisioned a scenario where SCOTUS justices would have to rule on a case involving them en banc. I believe they assumed justices would honorably step aside after serving an appropriate length of time. Unfortunately, honor has become very quaint.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Well since the whole thing relies on "a system of checks and balances"

and you have 3 Branches that are *supposed to* "check and balance" each other, then you can't leave the Judiciary out from getting any kind of "check" at all.

So that might be why the "Congress-can-make-a-law argument" for any "officer of the government". The fact that there is no "fixed" number of Justices designated in the Constitution is a case in point.

For example, the first to start getting a handle on the number - H.R. 334, An Act to fix the Number of Judges of the Supreme Court . . . and to change certain Judicial Circuits (Judicial Circuits Act of 1866), June 13, 1866 -



And then again 3 years later - the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the current number to 9 that stands today, 155 years later. I expect the "for life" thing had the assumption that an honorable person would have a better handle and reflection on the law and its ramifications when adjudicating it, from the point of not having to continually run for office. But then in that kind of system should a pile of evil people get shoved into these judicial positions (see the 5th Circuit and obviously the SCOTUS), that just compounds a nightmare (particularly given the difficulty getting an impeachment and conviction in a highly partisan Congress).

Regardless... if you can set a number, you can set a term limit too.

[FakeNoose]

18. Boom! This is the argument that will turn the case

The question is, can we trust our House and Senate to handle this question in a serious and non-partisan manner?

Oh hell no! They would turn it into a circus, especially the Senate would.

[Beausoleil]

6. There is a proposal that would expand the court

to 13 seats, one for each circuit, with the justices in each district rotating to the SCOTUS for a limited term.

This probably would not require an amendment but I am not a lawyer. It does seem to comport with the plain text of Art. III.

[Farmer-Rick]

7. Learn something new every day

I had no idea that the Constitution does not expressly grant “life tenure” to Supreme Court justices.

Instead, this idea has been derived from the language that judges and justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour.”.

Well by that standard most of the judges on the federal supreme court should be dead already. Very few of them have continued their good behavior.

No amendment necessary to limit a Koch Bros funded Supreme's reign of terror to a few years.

I never questioned it before.

[AllaN01Bear]

10. thomas isnt holding his office in good behaivour!. full stop.

[Polybius]

13. And guess who decides on the constitutionality anyway?

The Supreme Court will strike it down 9-0. I would too if it were my job.

[bigmonk]

5. Not enough

I think there are too few justices holding too much individual power. I opine we should add four justice positions, each having a four year term, with a term limit of one term and elected by national popular vote. This would dissipate the power of each individual judge while rejuvenating the court with new members with new perspectives every four year cycle.

[BComplex]

9. Wow! Now that is a good idea! Except for the 4 year term part...

When senators are elected every 6 years, we should at least give the supremes that much. But somehow we need to quit giving states with no people the privilege of 2 senators. That is so unfair, given the power of the senate. Where one senator can represent millions of constituents, and another senator can represent a couple of hundred thousand people. That's what gives republican white nationalists a huge advantage over actual humans.

[BComplex]

8. And how 'bout doing away with the electoral college? That way we won't keep having presidents

that aren't democratically elected by WE, the people!

[FakeNoose]

19. That question DOES require a Constitutional Amendment, unfortunately

I'm actually beginning to believe that SCOTUS can be reformed without an Amendment, and that's the most urgent thing right now. The Electoral College will have to wait until the current climate of political idiocy has settled down a bit.

[BComplex]

20. Agreed.

[SCantiGOP]

11. Just a side note:

While I completely support this effort, a ‘six figure buy’ isn’t a lot. A full page ad in the WSJ is over a quarter million for one insertion.
And one 30 second Super Bowl ad would run about $7 million this year.

[republianmushroom]

12. Like it.

[LudwigPastorius]

21. Well, term limits aren't going to the states for a vote unless there is a 2/3rds Democratic majority in both houses.

Republicans will not advance the proposed amendment while they have the majority on the Court.

...and the last time we had that kind of control was almost 60 years ago.