Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Denver news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Des Moines news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Tampa Bay news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Charlotte news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
The flag-draped casket of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose at the Supreme Court. Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
House Democrats are set to introduce a bill next week that would impose 18-year term limits on future Supreme Court justices, allowing a president to nominate two justices during each term in office.
The big picture: The bill, sponsored by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.), seeks to depoliticize the process of placing new justices on the court — a fight that has taken on new light after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last week.
- Americans across the political spectrum support the idea of Supreme Court term limits, per SCOTUS Blog.
Worth noting: Under the bill, the term limits would not apply to justices who are already seated on the Supreme Court.
- Those who do reach their term limit would be designated as "senior" justices and rotated to lower courts, but could be called back into service to temporarily fill an unexpected Supreme Court vacancy.
- It also includes a provision that allows a nominated justice to take their seat if the Senate does not act on their nomination within 120 days — effectively preventing another Merrick Garland situation.
The other side: Some argue that this type of change is not possible without a constitutional amendment. The provision exempting current justices is meant to navigate that issue.
What they're saying: "It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric," Khanna told Reuters.