Dems PLAN for MAJOR CHANGES to Supreme Court

0:00 Among some Americans, there is so much anger at the US Supreme Court right now.

0:04 They are so livid over the gutting of the Voting Rights

0:08 Act and the rolling back of civil rights protections for Americans

0:11 from coast to coast that any phrase that includes the terms

0:15 term limits and Supreme Court justices is going to get more attention,

0:19 engagement, and potentially some momentum.

0:23 There's no earthly way this Congress at this moment

0:26 passes term limits for the Supreme Court.

0:28 not in this log jammed Washington, not in this polarized moment.

0:31 But Americans are so livid in some corners

0:34 at these decisions that these proposals can pick up some energy,

0:40 some downhill momentum for future years and future congresses.

0:43 Johnnyski, first term Democrat from Baltimore,

0:47 has proposed an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices.

0:51 The nine justices each would come up every two years over 18 years.

0:56 Let me let him explain the idea and I'll

0:58 tell you why it's different than others before it.

1:02 This is a very straightforward response to a court

1:04 that has gotten way out of control.

1:06 It implements 18-year term limits through a constitutional amendment.

1:09 Just says after you've served 18 years on the Supreme Court,

1:12 it's time for you to move on.

1:14 There have been proposals for 18-year term limits before.

1:16 In fact, there are others in this Congress who proposed exactly that.

1:19 But Elves says his would be a constitutional amendment,

1:22 which makes it nearly impossible by moderate standards.

1:26 But he says it's important to be a constitutional

1:27 amendment because he thinks if it's just a law,

1:30 the Supreme Court, those justices would

1:34 interpret it to be invalid or unconstitutional.

1:37 It would not surprise me for them to take

1:39 a piece of legislation like that uh and overturn it.

1:42 a constitutional amendment certainly is a higher bar to pass but would

1:45 be irrefutable in terms of the implication

1:48 and the implementation of that change.

1:51 But yes, there are others pitching similar ideas.

1:54 Ro Kana, California Democrat,

1:56 says the time has come for not only term limits for Supreme Court justices,

2:01 but he thinks his party needs to be assertive,

2:04 aggressive about adding more justices if and when they take power,

2:08 if and when they take the White House.

2:10 They are totally out of touch.

2:12 I mean, the fact that they don't understand racially polarized voting

2:16 in the South just explains uh how out of touch they really are.

2:21 My proposal would limit Supreme Court justices to 18 years on the court.

2:26 They could then take senior status or they could go on a circuit court.

2:29 So, they're still a judge for life.

2:31 Every president would get two appointments.

2:33 But let me be clear, the Democrats, when we get power,

2:36 need to look at term limits and we need to look at expanding

2:39 the court and we need to campaign

2:40 against this court that is gutting voting rights,

2:44 that's eliminating black majority districts,

2:46 and that is really eroding our democracy.

2:48 They have focused on the court and as a result

2:51 of that, they've overturned Row versus Wade.

2:54 They've gutted the Voting Rights Act.

2:56 they have stacked the judiciary uh to basically

3:00 uh be partisan in finding for their causes.

3:04 We need to be aggressive when we get that power.

3:07 We need to make sure that we are uh calling

3:09 for term limits that has broad support but also that we have

3:12 the expansion of the court on the table and the next

3:15 Democratic president should take every action possible to reform the court.

3:19 There are some Republicans talking about term limits for some federal judges.

3:23 Tom Barrett, freshman Republican from Michigan,

3:26 has proposed the Judicial Term limits amendment, HJRES 145,

3:30 which would prevent judges who complete a 20-year

3:33 term from getting reappointed to the same federal court.

3:36 It would apply to newly appointed federal judges,

3:38 allowing the term limit to take effect

3:40 gradually as current judges leave the bench.

3:43 So, there is some bipartisan nature to some of these proposals,

3:48 but this is not the first generation of term limit proposals.

3:51 Fix the Court, a DCbased watchdog group,

3:53 has been arguing not only for codes of conduct for federal

3:56 judges to ensure none of them are taking improper benefits,

4:00 but also for term limits.

4:01 Take a listen to Fix the Court here in DC.

4:04 Having some sort of reasonable turnover where judges on the court

4:08 are serving for a time instead of for all time,

4:11 I think is a just a reasonable fix that that most Americans would love to see.

4:16 You say it's doable.

4:17 Um, that does sound far-fetched to people

4:21 who who think that the hurdles are herculean, the threshold is so high.

4:25 Why do you argue it's doable?

4:28 Um, because I don't think you need a constitutional amendment.

4:30 I think it could be done via law, via statute,

4:34 so long as you uh exempt the current nine from any term limits regime.

4:39 So, a new justice would come onto the court in every oddnumbered year,

4:44 so a non-election year, and that new justice would serve for 18 years.

4:49 And so, you'd have a new justice coming on every 18 years.

4:51 2* 9 is 18.

4:52 That's how we get the 18-year term.

4:54 And I think that as long as you're not impacting

4:57 the nine men and women who are sitting there now,

5:00 uh you're not trying to reduce their length of service

5:03 because I I don't think you can under the Constitution.

5:05 And I think it says once you're confirmed to a position,

5:07 that position is yours as it was set upon your confirmation.

5:10 And there's some, you know, Supreme Court precedent that that deals with that.

5:14 But, you know, so long as you're not uh

5:16 changing what the current nine are up to, you know,

5:18 the next man or woman who is uh confirmed,

5:23 I I think there's no reason that Congress could stop their Supreme Court ter

5:28 Supreme Court service at 18 years so long as the judges on the Supreme Court,

5:33 the justices would be able to serve as a federal judge for life.

5:36 Right?

5:37 Article 3 of the Constitution gives judges life tenure,

5:40 but I don't think that entire life tenure needs to be on the Supreme Court.

5:44 And as just one example, Steve Brier,

5:47 a justice who served for more than two decades and retired in 2022.

5:51 Since his retirement,

5:52 he's been hearing cases on the First Circuit Court of Appeals,

5:54 which is one of the 13 courts directly below the Supreme Court.

5:57 Sandra Day Okconor did that on every court of appeals.

5:59 So, it's something that I think is very doable based on uh current models.

6:03 We just want the justices serving a more

6:05 reasonable length of time in the future.

6:07 Are the politics in this one-sided or is it um is the political

6:11 muscle behind this I don't know unique cuz it's it's a pretty unique issue.

6:15 It is.

6:16 When fix the court started uh 12 years ago,

6:19 people on the left didn't want us to include term limits

6:22 because it was an idea that was so popular on the right.

6:25 term limits, small government.

6:26 That's always been sort of a conser lower, you know,

6:29 a more conservative uh thing in in in our in our politics

6:33 and only recently has the left been more excited about term limits.

6:36 But I think just in general, this idea that you serve for a time,

6:40 I think it sort of crosses partisan bounds.

6:42 There's been this superanuation in Congress that we've seen where, you know,

6:46 men and women in their 70s, 80s, even 90s are continuing to serve.

6:50 Obviously, the last two presidents that we have, uh,

6:52 there have been questions about their cognitive abilities,

6:55 uh, in large part due to their age.

6:57 So, I think yes, there might be some more, uh,

6:59 interest on the left now than there is on the right,

7:02 but this sometimes becomes cyclical.

7:03 And I think if you just ask sort of the rank and file on the left and the right,

7:07 you're going to see, you know, support in the' 70s, '8s across the board.

7:11 There's so many people so viscerally connected

7:14 to this redistricting monster that has been unleashed in America.

7:18 Among the comments I got is from LD who says,

7:20 "As a woman of color living in Texas, y'all have no idea.

7:23 They've been chopping at the bit for decades."

7:26 And there are other comments including SC who says,

7:29 "What's so staggering about it?

7:30 It's their culture.

7:31 They've been waiting for this moment since the end of the Civil War.

7:35 There's going to be a moment for a Congress, if it switches parties,

7:41 or for the White House if it switches parties to make a move on this.

7:44 Question is, can you get a bipartisan coalition together?"

7:48 That's what's needed by law or by constitutional amendment.

7:51 The parties will have to come together perhaps

7:53 with the recognition that tables always seem to turn.

7:56 Please continue to watch, like, subscribe,

7:58 and share as you continue my pursuit of helping independent journalists.

8:03 Really want to thank you for watching.

8:05 You can comment, share, and subscribe for exclusive reporting,

8:09 breaking news 365 days a year right