By Zach Weigel
For those who follow politics closely, you may be familiar with the thought of imposing term limits on politicians. Congressional members must face re-election every two or six years (depending on whether they are in the House or the Senate), which gives the impression that our members of Congress must maintain support to retain their office. Sadly, however, this notion is erroneous. Although incumbents win re-election at nearly 90 percent, the institution of Congress itself has dismal approval ratings, signifying that something doesn’t quite add up. How can we be so approving of our members of Congress, but hate Congress?
To use a colloquialism, perhaps the phrase “all politics is local” can explain this paradox. Members of Congress face two prominent tasks: representing their constituents’ interests and crafting national policy, yet when push comes to shove, a member of Congress is much more apt to be concerned about what his constituents think (because of re-election) than passing a law. So it makes sense that we may hold our personal members of Congress in high esteem as they represent our interests but despise Congress overall because the members frequently debate to no avail.
Still, in an ideal world, couldn’t we get both local representation and national policy accomplished? Some political scientists believe that inserting term limits could cause politicians to worry less about their re-election by focusing more on their constitutional role of policymaking. The problem is that Congress must pass an amendment to institute term limits, and it seems unlikely that Congress would do so because it takes away power from each individual Congressional member.
So if we can’t get Congress to initiate term limits, what could we do to curtail careerism in politics? How about implementing term limits on judicial appointees? Unlike legislators, judicial nominees are appointed by the president to serve life terms, meaning judicial nominations carry quite a bit of political weight (example, the current Supreme Court vacancy).
Interestingly enough, the judicial branch of government was originally designed to be apolitical; however, the current controversy over the Supreme Court highlights that the judicial branch is anything but apolitical. Because a president gets to appoint a judge for life, this action can have far-reaching implications beyond one presidency, leading politicians to treat the Supreme Court as a political tool. Thus, those on the left are fearful that Trump’s appointee will tip the court in a conservative direction, while those on the right were worried that Obama’s appointee would tip the court in liberal direction. And if the court has an ideological slant, then the court can effectively be rendered a political tool used to uphold or stymie controversial policies until its ideological balance flips.
Therefore, it appears that imposing term limits on the Supreme Court would diminish the political capacity of the court by limiting the lasting effects that one president can have through judicial appointees. And unlike congressional term limits, it’s more realistic for Congress to pass an amendment procuring term limits for the Supreme Court because there are no individual interests at stake. Although party politics are still sure to weigh heavy on the minds of lawmakers, it is time that party loyalties are put aside in favor of a more just Supreme Court arrangement.