Key Points

1. 1) Term limits will not achieve the goals its proponents intend. For one, term limits do not promise presidents an equal opportunity to appoint justices. Even with terms, vacancies will often remain random. Indeed, justices will not always complete their set terms and the term limits do nothing to prevent Senate machinations, such as purposefully delaying a confirmation vote.
2. 2) In addition to purportedly offering consistent and routine vacancies, proponents of 18-year term limits argue that the plan would reduce the intensity of the politics associated with confirmations at the Supreme Court level. This is doubtful, however, as term limits would inextricably tie political campaigns to the fate of the Court, turning the judiciary into a highly-partisan topic in nearly every campaign.
3. 3) With term limits, most justices will have a myriad of opportunities after their terms, most which will offer high financial benefits. This will create unprecedented conflicts of interest for the Court and will surely increase public cynicism toward the judiciary. This is dangerous, as the only true power the Court holds is legitimacy. Without it, there is little weight behind its opinions and greater incentive for the President or Congress to ignore its rulings—crippling our typical notion of separation of powers.