Lifetime Appointments: By Design, Not Accident
When our Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution, they didn’t just throw darts at a board to decide the rules. Every clause has a purpose, especially when it comes to the structure of our government. One of their most deliberate decisions was to establish lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. This wasn’t an oversight or a temporary fix; it was a fundamental aspect of preserving judicial independence.
Lifetime appointments ensure that justices, free from the regular pressures of re-election campaigns, can make decisions based solely on the law and their interpretation of it. This independence protects them from the whims of politics and the influence of temporary popular opinion.
Biden’s Proposal: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
Recently, President Joe Biden has floated the idea of imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. But one has to wonder: Why now? The timing and the nature of this proposal have raised more than a few eyebrows. Critics, including prominent commentators on “The Gutfeld Show,” have labeled it as nothing more than pandering to the radical left, a bone thrown to appease those calling for a reshaping of the court following several decisions they disagreed with.
Ragan, a guest on the show, likened it to a child who, not getting their way in a game, decides to pick up the ball and go home. This analogy paints a vivid picture of a tactic driven by frustration rather than thoughtful governance. “Biden doesn’t see a path to victory so he is out,” Ragan commented, suggesting that this move is more about changing the rules when they don’t favor you than about any genuine concern for judicial reform.
The Feasibility and Real Motives
Many legal experts agree that changing the lifetime appointment system would be a colossal challenge. It’s a constitutional issue that would require significant legislative changes, likely an amendment to the Constitution itself. As Tyrus, another commentator, pointed out, “It’s not just something you can simply do.” This process involves both houses of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures—a steep hill to climb, especially in today’s divided political climate.
Moreover, some believe that this push for term limits isn’t really about the health of our democracy or the integrity of the judiciary. Instead, it’s seen as a desperate move by a lame-duck president perceived to be in cognitive decline, grasping at straws to leave a mark or shift the narrative away from his administration’s failures. Kat, a resident expert on the Constitution on “The Gutfeld Show,” emphasized that lifetime appointments were designed to keep justices away from political retaliation or careerist influences, focusing solely on the law.
The Irony and the Political Theatre
It’s ironic, to say the least, that a career politician who has spent nearly half a century in office is now advocating for term limits. This sudden shift reeks of political theatre, a term tossed around during the discussion on “The Gutfeld Show.” This maneuver might be intended more to stir up a media frenzy and rally a disenchanted base than to genuinely reform a supposedly flawed system.
As the debate on the show highlighted, if we’re going to discuss term limits seriously, why stop at the Supreme Court? Why not impose them across all branches of government, including Congress, the body that arguably has a much more direct impact on the day-to-day lives of Americans?
Final Thoughts
As we watch this play out, one thing becomes clear: This proposal for Supreme Court term limits seems less about justice and more about politics. It’s a contentious issue, one that invites us to question the motives behind it and the implications it would have on our judicial system.
What do you think about imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices? Is this a genuine attempt to improve our judiciary, or is it just another example of political pandering by a president nearing the end of his tenure? Share your thoughts in the comment section below. Let’s get the conversation started!
Term limits are desperately needed for both houses of congress, not SCOTUS. As i recall, serving in either the house or senate was to be akin to a part time position. No we have career senators and representative who have NEVER held a real job. Those that go into congress are close to broke, but worth millions by the end of their first term. (Insider trading much?)
It is a desperate attempt to undermine our Judiciary and destroy the balance between the three branches of government. And Biden does not have any legitimate legacy to defend! And lest we forget: Harris is right in the middle of it.
This proposal wreaks of Obama. and Harris is right in the middle of it. Is this proposal for real? Or are they simply attempting to divert our attention from more important and critical issues?
temper tantrum he only want change to ruin our court if passed he should not be allowed to appoint
WOULDN’T YOU KNOW IT – the only thing biblical – the absence of term limits and they want to add them.
That’s not to say that term limits under today’s unbiblical judicial system would not sometimes be a good thing – that is, if the greater of two evils is replaced with the lesser of two evils. Frankly, it’s a no-win situation regardless which way they go because under the Constitutional Republic’s biblically egregious government, it’s always the evil of two lessers regardless who replaces who:
“…Article 2 provides four-year terms for presidents. Amendment 22 limits presidents to two terms. Most people would concede term limits are a good thing when evil men rule. But the question Christians should be asking is whether term limits are Biblical. Consider Solomon’s wisdom:
‘For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.’ (Proverbs 28:2)
Yahweh intends the term of a ruler who keeps His law to be protracted:
‘And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book … that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom….’ (Deuteronomy 17:18-20)
“The Constitution provides that the United States be ruled by ruler after ruler, which is part of Yahweh’s judgment against our sinful nation. Although term limits prevent corrupt officials from serving any longer than their terms allow, they permit them to serve as long as their terms allow. Term limits are a Band-Aid on a self-inflicted wound [inflicted with Article 6’s Christian test ban whereby mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders were also eliminated]. Under Yahweh’s law, provided a man remains Biblically qualified and mentally capable, he would not need to be removed from his bench. Only when a judge – for whatever reason – becomes biblically unfit, should his term end….”
For more, see Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at bible versus constitution dot org. Click on the top entry on our Online Book page and scroll down to Chapter 5.
For more regarding Article 6’s Christian test ban, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land.”