Why do Supreme Court justices hold lifetime appointments? Initially, the framers intended these positions to be insulated from political retaliation, ensuring judicial independence. However, the question now arises: Would fixed terms for justices serve the country better while still maintaining judicial independence?

Recently, Emory law professor Michael Broyde and I have engaged in a public dialogue, debating the merits and drawbacks of imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Broyde argues that term limits would neither depoliticize the Court nor reduce the contentious nature of confirmation battles. I contend that while term limits won't strip the Court of its inherent political nature, they could make its politics more regular and predictable, which is beneficial.

The current lifetime appointment system places an immense stake on each presidential election, with the composition of the Court often hanging in the balance based on the health or retirement decisions of its members. A term-limited Court would require voters to consider its impact more seriously, knowing that each presidential term will reliably influence its makeup.

Moreover, a fixed term for justices could address the current asymmetry where a disproportionate number of justices are appointed by presidents from one political party, despite a different party frequently winning the popular vote. This mismatch has been exacerbated by strategic retirements, which could be mitigated by regularizing the appointment process through term limits.

An 18-year term for a Supreme Court justice is substantial enough to influence significant legal doctrines but also ensures that the Court evolves with the changing views of successive generations. This could prevent the Court from becoming ideologically stagnant and overly influenced by the politics of past decades.

Critics, like Broyde, worry that term limits might encourage justices to angle for lucrative positions in the private sector post-retirement, potentially influencing their judicial decisions. However, the current system has not been immune to such concerns either, with instances of justices receiving substantial gifts and trips from individuals with interests before the Court.

The argument that Congress could abuse its power by imposing excessively short terms on justices underestimates the balance of powers and the role of public opinion in maintaining judicial independence. Congress already possesses significant tools to influence the Court but is restrained by political accountability.

In conclusion, while term limits for Supreme Court justices would not solve all issues related to its perceived legitimacy or the politicization of its processes, they represent a moderate, necessary reform. They could help realign the Court more closely with the democratic will, avoiding more radical changes like court-packing, and potentially restoring public trust in this vital institution.