In a bold move that could reshape the federal judicial landscape, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has backed the idea of imposing of term limits for Supreme Court justices.

If such limits were to be implemented, the initiative could see the compelled retirement of veteran conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in 2025, as Newsmax reports.

Harris's endorsement aligns with a Senate bill that suggests an 18-year term for justices, potentially starting with a date that would force Thomas's retirement.

The Road to the Debate: Harris's Judicial Reform Plan

Harris revealed her support for the judicial reform initiatives this Sunday, just days before her crucial presidential debate against Donald Trump.

This timing highlights the significance she places on judicial issues in her campaign. Harris aims to make the judiciary a key focus of the presidential debate, drawing a stark contrast with her opponent.

Aligned with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's 2023 legislative proposal, the term limits suggest an 18-year tenure for Supreme Court justices.

This change would not only impact Justice Clarence Thomas but would continue to affect subsequent appointments and retirements within the high court.

Thomas, who has been on the Supreme Court for nearly 33 years, would be the first justice affected by this plan. His long tenure makes him a pivotal figure in discussions about judicial reform and the potential impact of these term limits.

Whitehouse's Legislation and Harris's Campaign

Although Harris's campaign has not officially endorsed the Whitehouse bill, there is significant alignment between their policy goals. Whitehouse remarked on the synergy between the proposed legislation and Harris's views on the  judiciary, suggesting a cooperative approach to reform.

However, the viability of this judicial reform is contingent on a Democratic Party victory in the upcoming elections.

The party needs to secure the presidency and gain control of both congressional chambers, a scenario complicated by tough Senate races in states like West Virginia and Montana.

The proposed bill faces another hurdle, namely, constitutional concerns. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that judges serve during "good behavior," which has traditionally allowed for lifetime appointments unless impeached and removed.

Appointment Timeline and Potential Impacts

If enacted, the new term limits would schedule Supreme Court appointments every two years.

This structured approach would see Chief Justice John Roberts potentially stepping down in 2027 followed by Justice Samuel Alito in 2029, assuming Harris wins a second term.

This regular appointment cycle could lead to a more predictable and possibly less contentious nomination process. However, it also raises questions about the political implications of such frequent changes to the court's composition.

Supporters argue that regular transitions would prevent any single president from overly influencing the court with multiple appointments during their term or terms.

Harris's Critique of Trump's Judicial Legacy

In her campaign statements, Harris has been openly critical of Donald Trump's influence on the Supreme Court. She attributes the reversal of Roe v. Wade and resultant state-level abortion bans directly to justices appointed by Trump.

"Donald Trump is a threat to our fundamental rights and freedoms. He brags that he is 'proudly' responsible for handpicking Supreme Court Justices who overturned Roe, unleashing Trump Abortion Bans in states across the country, putting women's lives at risk, and threatening doctors and other health providers with jail time," Harris stated.

This critique forms a core part of Harris's argument for the necessity of reforming how justices are appointed and maintained within the judiciary, emphasizing the long-term impacts presidential appointments can have on civil liberties.