Okay, I think it’s time we have a conversation about term limits. I’m not just talking about term limits for politicians, I’m talking about term limits for everybody, including the United States Supreme Court, hear me out term limits, would do a few things. I know there are pros and cons to it. And I guarantee you, there are arguments in both parties to keep unlimited terms going on and on and on. Remember, the people who are telling you this are the ones that are currently serving in political office, you see, the foundation of this country was not built on the principle that said, politicians should be a professional industry. In other words, the idea that a politician is simply a politician was never the idea. In America, it was an idea that citizens, everyday people should be able to manage the affairs of the nation and be elected as a representative from their district. Okay. So if that’s the dynamic, we have significantly left that model a long time ago. You see, there are politicians that have been politicians longer than they’ve been anything else. They’re politicians who have been in office for 30 or 40 years, that’s a professional politician. How does that hurt you? How does that hurt communities? How does that create an adverse effect, here’s how, when you have that kind of colleague ship, for so many years, so many decades, all of a sudden this system sets in, we call it the good ol boy system, where votes are being done. By way of relationship, then by way of sentiment from the voter, the voters that put the person in power.
All of a sudden, this is a scratch my back, I scratch yours, rather than representing the best interest of the district. You see, this only happens when there’s this longevity, a culture sets in and then it, it crystallizes to where people say, There’s no way to uproot that system, there’s no way to come against that system. Well, there is what’s called term limits. You see, if you have someone in for a limited amount of time, more likely, they’re going to try to utilize that time in order to get stuff done, protect their legacy, honor their word, remember their commitment.
But when someone has been there forever, when someone has been there 1020 30 years, they know it’s going to be very difficult to ever lose in a primary, or a general election. They get reelected, reelected by name recognition alone. And they stop serving the community. They start serving special interests, they start serving their corporate friends, they start serving the leader of this, and the committee chairman of that rather than you. And the only way to destroy that kind of system is to have term limits. I think it is time to also have the conversation of term limits as it relates to the US Supreme Court. You see if they did it the way let’s say the FBI director is done, which is basically a 10 year term, which means they still can be fired. The Supreme Court would not have that same element, 10 years, 10 years, but they can be reaffirmed every 10 years, how would that help?
That means the decisions would not be so political. Because if they make a decision today, because they favor a particular, let’s say, President, they don’t know who will be president 10 years from that day, which means they may be more willing to make decisions, decisions based on congruence to law, rather than to their political ideology. Just a thought
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘Instill optimism’: Americans on how future generations can succeed
21 hrs ago Dr. Frank Luntz‘Have a little compassion’: Americans talk high holiday prices, anxiety
Dec 11 Dr. Frank Luntz‘System is rigged’: Black Americans on the American Dream
Nov 27 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Extremist’ or ‘phony’: Americans share who they voted for and why
Nov 21 Dr. Frank LuntzPoliticians and Supreme Court justices must have term limits
By Straight Arrow News
When the founders of the early American republic designed the Constitution, they envisioned a powerful judiciary separated from the influences of the legislative and executive branches. To try to reach that goal, the United States offers lifetime appointments to its federal Supreme Court justices.
In recent decades, however, Americans have raised a variety of arguments against these lifelong appointments. In 2024, 68% of Americans now say that they support term limits for Supreme Court justices, and the United States is the only advanced democracy in the world that still offers lifelong appointments to its senior-most federal justices.
Watch the above video as Straight Arrow News contributor Dr. Rashad Richey argues in favor of implementing term limits for United States Supreme Court justices and for U.S. politicians at all levels of government.
Be the first to know when Dr. Rashad Richey publishes a new opinion every Friday! Download the Straight Arrow News app and enable push notifications today!
The following is an excerpt of the above video:
You see, if you have someone in for a limited amount of time, more likely, they’re going to try to utilize that time in order to get stuff done, protect their legacy, honor their word, remember their commitment.
But when someone has been there forever, when someone has been there 10, 20, 30 years, they know it’s going to be very difficult to ever lose in a primary or a general election. They get reelected by name recognition alone. And they stop serving the community. They start serving special interests, they start serving their corporate friends, they start serving the leader of this, and the committee chairman of that, rather than you.
And the only way to destroy that kind of system is to have term limits. I think it is time to also have the conversation of term limits as it relates to the U.S. Supreme Court. You see, if they did it the way let’s say the FBI director is done, which is basically a 10-year term, which means they still can be fired, the Supreme Court would not have that same element, 10 years, but they can be reaffirmed every 10 years. How would that help?
That means the decisions would not be so political. Because if they make a decision today, because they favor a particular, let’s say, president, they don’t know who will be president 10 years from that day, which means they may be more willing to make decisions based on congruence to law, rather than to their political ideology.
Okay, I think it’s time we have a conversation about term limits. I’m not just talking about term limits for politicians, I’m talking about term limits for everybody, including the United States Supreme Court, hear me out term limits, would do a few things. I know there are pros and cons to it. And I guarantee you, there are arguments in both parties to keep unlimited terms going on and on and on. Remember, the people who are telling you this are the ones that are currently serving in political office, you see, the foundation of this country was not built on the principle that said, politicians should be a professional industry. In other words, the idea that a politician is simply a politician was never the idea. In America, it was an idea that citizens, everyday people should be able to manage the affairs of the nation and be elected as a representative from their district. Okay. So if that’s the dynamic, we have significantly left that model a long time ago. You see, there are politicians that have been politicians longer than they’ve been anything else. They’re politicians who have been in office for 30 or 40 years, that’s a professional politician. How does that hurt you? How does that hurt communities? How does that create an adverse effect, here’s how, when you have that kind of colleague ship, for so many years, so many decades, all of a sudden this system sets in, we call it the good ol boy system, where votes are being done. By way of relationship, then by way of sentiment from the voter, the voters that put the person in power.
All of a sudden, this is a scratch my back, I scratch yours, rather than representing the best interest of the district. You see, this only happens when there’s this longevity, a culture sets in and then it, it crystallizes to where people say, There’s no way to uproot that system, there’s no way to come against that system. Well, there is what’s called term limits. You see, if you have someone in for a limited amount of time, more likely, they’re going to try to utilize that time in order to get stuff done, protect their legacy, honor their word, remember their commitment.
But when someone has been there forever, when someone has been there 1020 30 years, they know it’s going to be very difficult to ever lose in a primary, or a general election. They get reelected, reelected by name recognition alone. And they stop serving the community. They start serving special interests, they start serving their corporate friends, they start serving the leader of this, and the committee chairman of that rather than you. And the only way to destroy that kind of system is to have term limits. I think it is time to also have the conversation of term limits as it relates to the US Supreme Court. You see if they did it the way let’s say the FBI director is done, which is basically a 10 year term, which means they still can be fired. The Supreme Court would not have that same element, 10 years, 10 years, but they can be reaffirmed every 10 years, how would that help?
That means the decisions would not be so political. Because if they make a decision today, because they favor a particular, let’s say, President, they don’t know who will be president 10 years from that day, which means they may be more willing to make decisions, decisions based on congruence to law, rather than to their political ideology. Just a thought
It’s time to take failed capitalism out of Christmas
Trump’s nominees indicate betrayal of our democracy
As Trump plans to weaponize FBI, Biden had to pardon Hunter
Jack Smith is wrong to drop all charges against Trump
Trump’s terrible judgment is to blame for Matt Gaetz drama
Underreported stories from each side
Scott Jennings: The biggest scandal in America is the cover-up of Biden’s condition
19 sources | 13% from the left Getty ImagesSinema reflects on criticism in exit interview: ‘Don’t give a s‑‑‑’
11 sources | 10% from the right Getty ImagesLatest Stories
Biden considers commuting death row: Report
Louisville police issue citation to homeless woman in labor
New book accuses Spotify of promoting fake artists
Andrew Cuomo sues for defamation after sexual harassment allegations
Driver kills at least two in Germany Christmas market attack
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Time to say goodbye to DEI
20 hrs ago Star ParkerIt’s time to take failed capitalism out of Christmas
21 hrs ago Dr. Rashad RicheyMusk-Ramaswamy DOGE initiative overdue and full of challenges
Thursday John FortierTrump’s Mar-a-Lago interview is a preview of troubles ahead
Thursday Jordan Reid