As the debate over Supreme Court term limits escalates, the conversation is shifting from dismissive skepticism to earnest critique, signaling a significant change in public and political engagement with the issue. Last week, Representative Hank Johnson reintroduced a bill proposing an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, a move reflecting growing public support, with approval ratings for such reforms now exceeding 70 percent.

The shift from impossibility to feasibility has brought new criticisms to the forefront. A recent opinion piece by Emory law professor Michael J. Broyde in the *National Law Journal* argues that term limits will not depoliticize the Supreme Court or improve the confirmation process. Broyde contends that the real problem is the excessive power of the Court in political matters, a point that, while valid, misses the broader implications of term limits.

Critics like Broyde argue that term limits might increase partisanship by linking Supreme Court appointments more directly to presidential elections, potentially making each election a referendum on the future composition of the Court. However, this connection could enhance democratic engagement by making voters more aware of the judicial stakes during elections.

Moreover, concerns about what justices will do after their terms end seem overblown. The fear that justices might leverage their prestige and inside knowledge for personal gain in the private sector ignores the current reality where justices, such as Breyer and Kennedy, have not sought lucrative post-retirement roles. Instead, they have generally chosen to retire completely from public legal practice.

The argument that term limits would simply perpetuate existing problems underestimates the potential of these reforms to realign the Court more closely with shifts in public and political sentiment. The goal is not to strip the Court of its power or depoliticize it entirely—which is unrealistic given its constitutional role—but rather to ensure that its composition and decisions do not lag too far behind the evolving values and norms of American society.

As the debate continues, it's clear that the issue of Supreme Court term limits is no longer on the fringes of political discourse but is moving steadily towards the center. Whether or not the current legislative proposals will pass remains uncertain, especially under a GOP-led Congress. However, the growing public support and the shift in the nature of the discourse around term limits suggest that change may come sooner rather than later. It is a development that both conservatives and liberals should watch closely, as it addresses fundamental questions about the balance of power, democratic accountability, and the future of America's highest court.