Bill Overview
Title: Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2022
Description: This bill sets an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court Justices.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by U.S. Supreme Court decisions
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The legislation affects the structure and processes of the United States Supreme Court, which plays a crucial role in shaping law and policy in the country.
- The bill establishes an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, thus changing the lifetime appointment framework.
- Such structural changes impact how cases and appeals are addressed, which in turn influences law interpretation.
- The Supreme Court frequently addresses significant national issues affecting all citizens.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts the functioning of the Supreme Court, which has implications for legislative and social decisions that affect everyday American life. However, the immediate personal impact on 'self-reported wellbeing' is more nuanced and indirect.
- Since only a limited subset of individuals have legal or political careers directly linked to Supreme Court outcomes, the broader population will have delayed and dispersed effects.
- The policy budget is not exerted in influencing personal perception directly but in the structuring and transitioning process of the court itself.
- To simulate realistic impacts on 'self-reported wellbeing,' individuals who have varying degrees of awareness or opinions about the judiciary and justice system in the US are included.
Simulated Interviews
Law professor (New York City, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 18.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will lead to a more dynamic and balanced Supreme Court.
- Term limits could help in reducing political polarizations related to long tenure judicial appointments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired judge (Topeka, KS)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is high time we consider modernizing tenure stipulations for justices.
- This could lead to increased accountability if managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Social worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how this will affect the individuals I work with, but change might be good.
- Simplifying court dynamics could lead to decisions that reflect contemporary societal needs more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this directly impacting my day-to-day life.
- Long-term structural changes don't usually affect me personally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an exciting change. It aligns with theories I am eager to see tested.
- Term limits bring a refreshing perspective to the selection and retiral process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prefer stability in law and sometimes these changes create confusion initially.
- Businesses need predictability in legal environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental policy analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 18.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supreme Court decisions deeply affect environmental policies.
- An 18-year tenure could bring fresh perspectives to pressing issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired school teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have seen many changes in our judiciary and government - this one seems like progress.
- I hope it leads to a more balanced court.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Healthcare consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthcare policies often depend on Supreme Court decisions.
- Change is good, but it would be a slow adjustment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public school administrator (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Supreme Court significantly impacts educational policies that affect my work.
- The potential for a more responsive court could help us tremendously.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill involves structural changes to the Supreme Court with long-term implications for justice appointment cycles.
- It is essential to evaluate how the term limit affects legal stability and continuity on the Supreme Court.
- The indirect impacts on the legal framework and societal norms through evolving judicial interpretations should be monitored.
- Public perception and acceptance of term limits to support institutional credibility.