The lawmakers are proposing a Constitutional amendment that would provide 18-year term limits in an effort to foster regular turnover and enhance public trust in the Supreme Court, as The Hill reports.

Manchin (I-WV) and Welch (D-VT) recently introduced a resolution proposing the new time limits for service at the high court.

This change seeks to modify the current lifetime tenure system, a move prompted by rising public concern over the Supreme Court's perceived partisanship.

Details of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment

The resolution calls for a constitutional amendment in which each justice would serve an 18-year nonrenewable term. New justices would be appointed every two years, ensuring a continuous cycle of appointment and retirement.

Furthermore, the resolution stipulates that the Supreme Court must not exceed nine justices at any time, maintaining its current size but enhancing the process of judicial appointments.

Transition and Potential Impact on Current Justices

According to the resolution, current justices would be exempt from these term limits. They could remain in their positions until retirement or incapacity, with the new term limits affecting only future appointments.

This staged introduction ensures a seamless transition to the new system without disrupting the existing structure of the Court.

Public Support and Scholarly Endorsement for Term Limits

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has waned, with a significant decline in recent years. Surveys by the Annenberg Public Policy Center indicate broad support for judicial reforms, including term limits and mandatory retirement ages.

The proposed term limits have garnered backing from numerous legal scholars and former federal judges, who view these changes as vital for restoring integrity and public trust in the judiciary.

Political Reactions and Endorsements

Manchin expressed concerns about the current lifetime appointment system, noting it promotes "polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing."

He believes the amendment would mitigate these issues by ensuring regular judicial appointments.

Welch echoed these sentiments, highlighting that term limits could significantly reduce political maneuvering associated with Supreme Court appointments.

Legal Perspectives on the Proposed Changes

Legal experts sch as Diane P. Wood and Kermit Roosevelt have voiced their support. Wood praised the resolution for aligning with the U.S. constitutional framework, while Roosevelt pointed out the need for a non-partisan solution to the politicized appointment process.

Roosevelt specifically noted that the current system has been exploited in ways the framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated, necessitating these proposed reforms.

The Road Ahead for the Resolution

The resolution's success depends on its passage through both houses of Congress and subsequent ratification by the states.

Given the contentious nature of Supreme Court appointments, the proposal is expected to ignite significant debate among lawmakers and the public alike.

As Joe Manchin prepares for retirement from the Senate, this resolution could represent a significant part of his legislative legacy, potentially reshaping the Supreme Court for generations to come.