A majority of Americans want to do away with lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, according to new polling data. The poll results are an indication that the public is open to reforming the highest court in the U.S.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on Thursday and Friday of last week found that 63 percent of voters support term or age limits for members of the Supreme Court. Only 22 percent felt that there shouldn’t be any limits at all to how long a justice of the court should serve.
On the issue of whether the court should see its membership size increase or not, however, respondents were divided. On that question, there was a near-even divide, with 38 percent saying they favored the idea while 42 percent opposed. The remaining respondents in the poll, Reuters said, were unsure.
Democrats have recently pushed for expanding the Supreme Court, which would require a simple act of Congress as the Constitution does not lay out how many justices there should be. Since 1869, the number of permanent seats on the court’s bench has been set at nine.
President Joe Biden fulfilled a campaign pledge last week by forming a commission to examine possible reforms to the Supreme Court, including looking at expansion or limits on tenure length. The commission is set to report back to the president with its findings in six months’ time, although it will not make a formal recommendation on what reforms should be made, if any.
While the formation of such a commission was welcomed by some, many progressives felt that it is simply delaying possible action on the court that should be taken today.
“We don’t have time to spend six months studying the issue — especially without a promise of real conclusions at the end,” said Aaron Belkin, director of Take Back the Court, a group in favor of expanding the Court’s size.
Echoing that sentiment, a group of Democratic lawmakers last Thursday, including House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-New York), introduced legislation that would expand the court’s size from nine justices to 13, giving Biden four new appointments. However, shortly after announcing their proposal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) shot down the effort.
“The ultimate goal here is to make the historically proper choice for the administration of justice in the long term,” Pelosi said, urging her colleagues to allow the commission formed by Biden to do its job first.
The need to expand the Supreme Court, however, arises from actions taken over the past few years by Republicans that resulted in what many see as an undue number of conservative justices being nominated and confirmed, with GOP obstruction disallowing a liberal nominee from even being considered.
Following Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected passing in 2016, former President Barack Obama nominated then-Judge Merrick Garland to replace him. But Republicans refused to allow a full vote in the Senate or even nomination hearings for Obama’s pick, citing the proximity of the presidential race that was set to happen in a few months. Republicans also blocked over 100 of Obama’s lower court appointments in his last few years in office.
However, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, Republicans hypocritically pushed through former President Donald Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, just weeks before election day.
As a result of obstructing Garland and confirming Barrett, the balance on the Supreme Court is 6-3 in favor of conservative members versus liberal bloc members.
Because of their inconsistent actions, a number of progressive voices and lawmakers called for expanding the court to address its improper balance, resulting in Biden making his promise to form a commission on the matter last fall.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 3 days to add 280 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.