Term limits a bad idea for U.S. Supreme Court

A Washington Post editorial in The Tribune suggested that we rethink whether there should be a term limit for U.S. Supreme Court justices. A mandatory retirement age was also suggested. I disagree.

Older justices have had time to hone their judicial temperament and skills.

With longer terms, justices can develop their judicial philosophy and find common ground with their colleagues. It can take decades to formulate and advance a position on social issues that ultimately persuades colleagues to join. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believed in incremental change and slowly moved the rest of the court to recognize women’s rights under the constitution. The country had failed to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, but this diminutive justice achieved steady progress for women’s rights in a male-dominated court. Should Ginsburg be forced out if she can still do the work? I hope not.

Many judges mature and write their strongest opinions after long service on the court. Life tenure affords the conscience time to ripen without fear of reprisal for unpopular views.

The answer to political turmoil over Antonin Scalia’s replacement is not term limits. The present system permits the judiciary to remain independent, as I believe it must.

This story was originally published March 1, 2016 at 9:13 PM with the headline "Term limits a bad idea for U.S. Supreme Court."