Real Court Reform: One Pick, Five Seats, Twenty Years

Court reform should not be driven by frustration, anger, or revenge. It should begin with reason, a belief in ‘what’s good for them will be good for me,’ and be simple to administer. The current system rewards timing, tribal fury, and biological chance. A serious republic should do better.

A Supreme Court, whether state or federal, should not be a political lottery. The system should not depend on actuarial luck, strategic retirement, or the medical endurance required to retain lifetime power. These factors create a system more akin to institutional gambling than to constitutional wisdom and public confidence. A system in which an executive inherits three vacancies and another none is inherently unfair and destined for manipulation.

A cleaner model should be considered: five justices, a twenty-year term*, and one appointment per executive term. Simply put, each executive receives one appointment per term. Justices serve twenty years, not for life, and no justice serves twice. Systematically, the bench stabilizes at five because the math is straightforward: one appointment every four years, paired with a twenty-year term, yields a predictable five-seat court.

Operationally, if any justice leaves early for any reason, the seat is filled to keep the Court at five. The replacement can serve only the remainder of that seat’s twenty-year term. This preserves the rhythm and prevents opportunism. The point is not to help Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals. The point is to remove the jackpot and keep the Court dynamic by increasing turnover.

The transition would begin with the current justices and take sixteen years. In the first year of a new executive, the most senior justice with more than twenty years of service would step down and be replaced by the executive’s single-term selection. Each subsequent year, the most senior justice with more than twenty years of service would step down and not be replaced. This annual review would continue until all current justices with more than twenty years of service had retired from their seats. Going forward, all justices would be subject to the twenty-year limit.

This model would reduce nomination warfare and gamesmanship because every executive would have predictable influence. It would reduce gerontocracy because no seat would become a lifetime throne. It would reduce court-packing hysteria because the size would be fixed. It would strengthen legitimacy because citizens could understand the structure without a constitutional séance.

Five justices are enough for deliberation, dissent, and clarity. Twenty years is long enough for independence and not long enough for political immortality. The court’s direction naturally swings with the general elections. The court becomes more the people’s choice than the power brokers and political parties.

Reform should not ask, “Who benefits today?” or “Who will be the most loyal?” It should ask, “What structure would we trust if our side loses?” NeverFearTheDream…simplebender.com

.—- —… ….. —… ..— —– / … .. — .–. .-.. .

_{*During the first 100 years of the Supreme Court, the average term of service for a Justice was less than 17 years. Since 1960, the average term of service has been 23 years.}