Overview
Title
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to normalize vacancies and appointments for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
This proposal is about how long the main judges, called justices, get to work for the highest court in the U.S. It says there should always be nine of them, and each one should work for 18 years, like playing a long game before passing the ball to someone new. If their special leader, the Chief Justice, isn't there, the oldest one takes over.
Summary AI
S. J. RES. 120 proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to manage the timing and terms of Supreme Court justices' appointments. It sets the Supreme Court's composition at nine justices, including the Chief Justice. The terms for justices begin on July 1 of odd-numbered years and last for 18 years, with specific rules for handling vacancies before the article's ratification and filling roles if a justice departs early. Additionally, the most senior justice becomes Chief Justice if the position becomes vacant.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed joint resolution, designated as S. J. RES. 120 in the 118th Congress, seeks to amend the United States Constitution to alter the appointment and tenure structure for justices of the Supreme Court. It introduces a system where justices are appointed for a fixed term of 18 years. This differs from the current practice of lifetime appointments. The bill stipulates a structured schedule for appointments, ensuring that new terms commence and conclude on specific dates, essentially creating a staggered system to normalize the process of filling vacancies.
Summary of Significant Issues
The proposal brings several critical issues to light. Among these is the potential challenge posed by the fixed 18-year term, which raises concerns about judicial independence—a cornerstone of the judicial branch—by contrasting with the current lifetime tenure system. Furthermore, the resolution does not address the procedural handling of tie votes, a significant oversight given that the system's reliance on odd-numbered terms could lead to an even number of justices at times, thus increasing the likelihood of such occurrences.
The amendment also lacks clarity in several areas, such as determining the "most senior justice" for appointing a new Chief Justice, or addressing how existing justices' terms would be affected retroactively. Additionally, the bill does not consider unforeseen circumstances that might delay or affect the appointment or end of terms, such as the Senate's role in providing timely consent. The vagueness around reappointments, especially in the face of potential judicial structure changes or national emergencies, further complicates the scenario.
Potential Impact on the Public
For the general public, the proposed amendment aims to make the Supreme Court more predictable and regular in its functions. By introducing term limits, it attempts to ensure a consistent opportunity for turnover, which could potentially lead to a bench that evolves alongside shifts in societal values and norms. However, this shift away from lifetime appointments might also be viewed as a limit on the judiciary's independence, potentially politicizing the court by tying changes in its membership more closely to political cycles.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Several stakeholders may experience distinct impacts from this proposal. Judicial appointees might face a career that’s viewed as less stable compared to the historical precedent of lifetime appointments. While this can inject a regular influx of new viewpoints into the court, it may also deter some potential candidates who view the position as less permanent.
The President and the Senate, as primary players in appointment confirmations, could find their roles altered by the predictable cadence of nominations. The predictable schedule may aid in planning, but persistent vacuums or partisan standoffs could disrupt the intent of the resolution.
Legal scholars and practitioners might see a shift in how precedents evolve and are challenged, with potentially more frequent turnovers bringing regular opportunities for ideological shifts within the court. Additionally, this could also impact the public's perception of the judiciary's neutrality, affecting trust in its rulings.
In sum, while the bill aspires to create a structured and predictable Supreme Court nomination process, the various ambiguities and potential unintended consequences warrant careful consideration to preserve judicial independence and the functional integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues
The amendment does not specify the process for resolving tie votes in the Supreme Court, which could be significant due to an even number of justices if a vacancy arises and remains unfilled (Section —).
The lack of explicit criteria for determining the 'most senior justice' in Section 7 could be problematic, especially if seniority is contested.
The proposal does not provide clarity on the implications of appointments when multiple consecutive replacements are necessary before a full term is completed, affecting the continuity and stability of the Supreme Court (Section 6).
There is no indication of how the changes will apply retroactively to justices appointed before the ratification of the amendment, creating potential uncertainty (Section 2).
There is no provision for unforeseen circumstances that could affect the start or end of a justice's term, which might disrupt the judicial process (Section 2).
The fixed term length of 18 years might raise concerns about influencing judicial independence, as it deviates from the traditional lifetime appointment (Section 2).
The process assumed by the amendment for confirmations seems linear and uninterrupted, lacking consideration for potential delays or issues in the Senate's advice and consent role, which could affect its effectiveness (Section —).
The amendment restricts reappointments without addressing potential future structural changes or national emergencies that might require flexibility (Section 8).
The language regarding the term commencement and termination is repetitive and could be streamlined, which may lead to interpretation challenges (Section —).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
— Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlines a new structure for the Supreme Court, setting term limits of 18 years for justices, detailing the appointment process for new justices, and establishing that the most senior justice will become Chief Justice if a vacancy occurs.
1. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Supreme Court of the United States consists of nine justices, including the Chief Justice.
2. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that any Supreme Court justice appointed after the ratification of this article will start their term on July 1 of the first odd-numbered year following the ratification and will serve for 18 years until June 30 of the ending year.
3. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the tenure rules for justices appointed after a certain date, stating that their term starts on July 1 of the first odd-numbered year following another justice's term, and lasts until June 30, 18 years after the start of their term.
4. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If a justice position becomes vacant before July 1 of an odd-numbered year, the person appointed to fill this vacancy can start serving before their official term begins, but their term will end according to specific rules in sections 2 or 3.
5. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If a justice leaves their position after July 1 in an odd-numbered year, the new justice who is appointed to fill the vacancy will have their term end according to the usual rules, even if they didn't start on the official start date of that term.
6. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The President is allowed to appoint someone to finish the term of a justice who leaves their position early, as long as the Senate agrees. This only applies to justices appointed after the article is ratified.
7. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
When there is an opening for the Chief Justice of the United States, the justice who has been serving the longest will take on the role of Chief Justice.
8. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
An individual who is appointed as a justice on or after the ratification date of this new article is not allowed to be appointed again to the position of a justice. This rule also applies to someone who fills the remainder of a term under a specific section.