Do you support term limits for…

[TDAS04]

Assuming we all know about about the current term limits for the executive, that there are none for the legislature or judiciary, and that the only way to change any of this is through a Constitutional amendment. What term limits do you personally favor?

Do I support term limits for…

Congress: No
President: Yes. Current term limits are fine. Allowing POTUS to serve three terms would also be okay.
Supreme Court: Yes. A SCOTUS member should be allowed no more than one 18-year term.

EDIT: While members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life, and "terms" may not be applicable, just vote yes for SCOTUS if you think the amount time a justice serves should be limited.

[Antonio V]

Congress: No
President: Yes. Current term limits are fine. Allowing POTUS to serve three terms would also be okay.
Supreme Court: Yes. A SCOTUS member should be allowed no more than one 18-year term.

This pretty much.

[nicholas.slaydon]

No, I stand against all term limits on the ground that they are extremely anti-democratic.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No, I stand against all term limits on the ground that they are extremely anti-democratic.

Life tenure for SCOTUS judges is extremely undemocratic. I suppose a good compromise would be to not have term limits for them, but to still have term lengths of a fixed period of time for them, afterwards the option could still be there for the to be reappointed, but they would lose their seat if not.

[MarkD]

I do not support any term limits on any officials in the three branches of the federal government or the three branches of the state governments.
Has term limiting the President resulted in a reduced likelihood that they are corrupt? Look at Nixon and Trump.
Do term limited Governors and state legislators behave like better politicians than Governors and state legislators who are not term limited?
Experience and institutional memory are valuable commodities and they should not be treated as if they are worth nothing more than the contents of a diaper.
Some of the best Supreme Court Justices we've ever had served on the Court for over 25 years. We surely don't have enough great Justices, but imposing term limits on them is not going to change that.
Term limits on elected officials is based on the insulting theory that the voters are too stupid to know when, why, and how to get rid of an incumbent. Not only is it insulting, but it isn't even true.

[NE Senator Christian Man]

Congress: Yes
POTUS: Yes
SCOTUS: Only if they're democratically elected as well.

[The Corvid Whisperer]

Broadly, I think term limits for elected executive positions are reasonable and term limits for legislators are stupid. The Supreme Court of the United States does not fit either category but I would say it should have "term limits" (or rather, limited terms) on the grounds that a body entirely composed of people appointed for life is pretty poor for democracy.

[BothSidesEnjoyer]

Yes for all three.

[dead0man]

no for all three

[1776 Becky Edwards Patriot]

Congress - No
Presidency - Two consecutive terms, similar to CA or Montana
SCOTUS - Yes

[politicallefty]

I do not support any term limits on any officials in the three branches of the federal government or the three branches of the state governments.
Has term limiting the President resulted in a reduced likelihood that they are corrupt? Look at Nixon and Trump.
Do term limited Governors and state legislators behave like better politicians than Governors and state legislators who are not term limited?
Experience and institutional memory are valuable commodities and they should not be treated as if they are worth nothing more than the contents of a diaper.
Some of the best Supreme Court Justices we've ever had served on the Court for over 25 years. We surely don't have enough great Justices, but imposing term limits on them is not going to change that.
Term limits on elected officials is based on the insulting theory that the voters are too stupid to know when, why, and how to get rid of an incumbent. Not only is it insulting, but it isn't even true.

I strongly agree with what you're saying with respect to Congress and the Presidency, particularly with Congress. Institutional knowledge and experience are vastly understated in their importance when it comes to legislatures. Term limits simply empower the lobbyists and special interest groups. The states are literally the trial runs of the term limit experiment. Are states with strict term limits functioning better than those without? Is it bringing government closer to the people? I see no evidence of an affirmative answer to that question. I think a far better reform for improve the responsiveness of legislatures is to end gerrymandering. I would also argue in support of larger legislatures so that the size of districts are smaller. As has been said many times, elections are term limits.

I do respectfully disagree when it comes to the judiciary though. Life tenure is a very different system compared to having elections. All the current system does is ensure that judges will be younger and younger. The days of nominating a 60-year-old or older are over. Even 55 might be pushing it now. Life tenure was something very different in 1789. I think term limits provide a level of assurance in the system. Supreme Court death roulette is not good for this country or the Constitution itself. The ultimate problem with noting that some great Justices have served beyond 25 years is that some bad Justices have also done so. Eliminating life tenure ensures that the Constitution will always be greater and endure beyond any particular Justice or judge.

[Punxsutawney Phil]

NOTA

[Maps are a good thing]

Term limits for all of the above and all state and municipal offices as well. Jefferson's concept of needing a revolution every twenty years has aged like fine wine.

[Alben Barkley]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Term limits are, universally, a horrendous idea. If someone is awful at their job, just vote them out or replace them. I mean we already have term limits; they're called "elections." But people who are good at their job and have a lot of experience should NOT be punished, nor should the voters who want to keep them, and we shouldn't arbitrarily have to replace them with inferior less experienced candidates every so many years. Even for SCOTUS, which everyone knows I am no fan of, they're still a bad idea. SCOTUS is as partisan as any other institution, despite their pretensions otherwise, so not having term limits means justices can retire at a an ideal strategic time (i.e. when their preferred party has the White House). Term limits could mean that liberal justices are FORCED to be replaced by conservative presidents, and that's just not a risk I'm willing to take.

Also it still makes zero sense to me how a site like Atlas of all places would so overwhelmingly support presidential term limits when the only president to actually serve more than two terms is possibly the site's favorite POTUS. What? He was living proof that sometimes it's a VERY good and even necessary thing for a president to serve more than two terms! Makes ZERO sense to me that FDR of all people was the catalyst for actually enshrining term limits in our Constitution, in our worst amendment since the 18th.

[politicallefty]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Term limits are, universally, a horrendous idea. If someone is awful at their job, just vote them out or replace them. I mean we already have term limits; they're called "elections." But people who are good at their job and have a lot of experience should NOT be punished, nor should the voters who want to keep them, and we shouldn't arbitrarily have to replace them with inferior less experienced candidates every so many years. Even for SCOTUS, which everyone knows I am no fan of, they're still a bad idea. SCOTUS is as partisan as any other institution, despite their pretensions otherwise, so not having term limits means justices can retire at a an ideal strategic time (i.e. when their preferred party has the White House). Term limits could mean that liberal justices are FORCED to be replaced by conservative presidents, and that's just not a risk I'm willing to take.

The difference between SCOTUS and other elected offices is that the latter have term limits as you describe. They can be voted out through elections. The Supreme Court has tremendous power that is ultimately not accountable to anyone (ultimately, they're supposed to be accountable to the people by upholding the Constitution as adopted and amended by the people). Conservatives already have a supermajority on SCOTUS and they can all just as easily wait until their preferred political paradigm is in place. At this point, liberals need a favourable spin on the death roulette wheel to stand a chance at ever having a majority on the Court (short of expansion). We had one in 2016 and it was stolen, followed by the worst possible spin in 2020.

I don't see how not having term limits gets you what you want. To be fair, I would also argue that any amendment altering life tenure should change the nomination and confirmation process. The judiciary needs to be depoliticized as much as possible. Otherwise, the least accountable branch of government becomes a de facto partisan superlegislature with ultimate power (or so long as the people tolerate it).

[MABA 2020]

SCOTUS would definitely benefit from term limits

[TML]

SCOTUS would definitely benefit from term limits

There are still potential downsides to this, though. For example, a study conducted by Vanderbilt University in 2019 indicated that if SCOTUS term limits had been imposed in the mid-1970s, simulation results indicate that the court would have flipped on abortion rights three times over three decades.

[TDAS04]

SCOTUS would definitely benefit from term limits

There are still potential downsides to this, though. For example, a study conducted by Vanderbilt University in 2019 indicated that if SCOTUS term limits had been imposed in the mid-1970s, simulation results indicate that the court would have flipped on abortion rights three times over three decades.

I agree that SCOTUS members should not be up for reelection or even reconfirmation. They should just get one term consisting of a fixed number of years (I suggested 18).

That would be better than a mandatory retirement age, which would still result in presidents discriminating on the basis of age as they attempt to make their mark on the Judiciary felt for years to come.

And of course it’s WAY better than lifetime appointments. Regardless of party or ideology, I don’t understand how one could not see the problem with the lack of rotation on SCOTUS. Frankly, it results a person rooting the death of a justice from the opposite ideology when the President is from the said person’s party, and who could blame them? When a president of a particular party gets to replace a justice from the other side, that’s a precious opportunity that no self-respecting party would pass up.

[Antonio V]

It is good for the SCOTUS to be somewhat responsive to political trends. While a depoliticized judiciary is a worthy ideal to aspire to, this is clearly not what lifetime judicial terms have brought - instead, they've just allowed one side to lock in a seemingly permanent majority that's utterly irresponsive to public pressure, or in other words an oligarchy. As long as you're going to have a political appointment process, you need that process to be meaningfully connected to the will of the people.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The supreme court should have terms, but not term limits.

[LabourJersey]

Congressional term limits are misguided and almost always lead to a situation where all the legislative expertise (and therefore real advocacy power) is in the hands of unelected lobbyists instead of elected officials. People are going to make legislating a lifetime career one way or the other - it's better to have the most powerful ones accountable to voters.

Presidential term limits I'm fine with, though I would personally prefer it if the limit was two consecutive terms instead of two terms for life. Allowing a popular ex-President to make a comeback isn't an unreasonable ask, and is a little more democratic.

SCOTUS justices should be limited to specific terms, or at a minimum have a retirement age like many state courts have.

[Antonio V]

The supreme court should have terms, but not term limits.

I think leaving SC justices up for potential reappointment is a bad idea honestly. It would create a situation where they have a direct interest in pleasing the person (and perhaps more worryingly the institution) that would reappoint them. In fact I'd argue SC justices should probably be barred from serving in any appointed position after they finish their terms.

[Cokeland Saxton]

All 3. Age limits too while we're at it

[The Bakersfield ☄️ has been 🧯💨]

The supreme court should have terms, but not term limits.

I think leaving SC justices up for potential reappointment is a bad idea honestly. It would create a situation where they have a direct interest in pleasing the person (and perhaps more worryingly the institution) that would reappoint them. In fact I'd argue SC justices should probably be barred from serving in any appointed position after they finish their terms.

Yeah, give them a generous pension after an 18 year term and prohibit them from being judges/justices again.

Ideally we’d be nominating someone around 52 and they serve until they hit 70.

I’m fine with the presidential term limits as they are.

In regards to congress, I think that there’s some middle ground to be struck here. An age limit might work better than a term limit. Say 75 years old as a limit (e.g. once you hit that age, you’re ineligible for future elections).

[Roll Roons]

What about the idea of having, say, an 18 or 24 year limit in each chamber? That's enough time for legislators to become good at the job, but also works toward ensuring that people wouldn't be in Congress when they're clearly no longer fit to serve.

18 years for SCOTUS is very reasonable, as is the current 22nd Amendment.