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: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: All people under jurisdictions affected by US Supreme Court decisions
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Supreme Court Justices will directly be impacted as their lifetime appointment terms will be reduced to 18 years.
- Future appointees will have different career planning due to limited tenure.
- The balance and decisions of the Supreme Court may change more frequently, potentially impacting US legal landscape.
- The legal profession in the United States, especially those who frequently engage with Supreme Court rulings.
- Citizens involved in or affected by landmark decisions made under different compositions of the Court.
Reasoning
- The main direct impact is on Supreme Court Justices due to term limitations and the resultant career planning shifts for future appointees.
- There could be indirect effects on individuals and professions that are more closely related to Supreme Court activities, like lawyers or those whose personal and professional lives are affected by its rulings.
- While the general population will not feel a direct impact day-to-day, the changes can alter the balance and nature of rulings over time, indirectly affecting long-term societal issues.
- The policy is not directly affecting all citizens financially or in terms of daily lifestyle adjustments, so the immediate personal impact for most is low, but broader societal impacts regarding legal interpretations could be medium-to-high over time.
- Diverse perspectives are represented, covering those directly within the legal profession, to those in roles depending on Court's decisions, to citizens indirectly affected by the Court's evolving composition.
Simulated Interviews
Supreme Court Justice (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy completely changes how I view my judicial career path and legacy.
- An 18-year term limit might inject new perspectives more regularly, but also means less time to develop landmark rulings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Appellate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will change how I prepare cases in anticipation of Court composition shifts.
- Regular turnover could introduce fresh legal interpretations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
University Law Professor (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides an exciting opportunity for new constitutional dialogues as the Court's composition evolves more frequently.
- This could be a double-edged sword—more amateur rulings but also adaptability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Law School Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might change my career, as it might offer more opportunities to practice under different judicial interpretations.
- It adds an element of unpredictability to the legal landscape.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired Supreme Court Clerk (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From my experience, this change offers periodic refreshing of ideas but risks losing seasoned judges' insight.
- It will be a significant societal shift but likely manageable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Civil Rights Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's worrisome that important rights could be constantly renegotiated.
- While term limits prevent lifetime cementing of divisive topics, it increases uncertainty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't follow Court decisions closely, but my life might be sidelong affected if the rulings impact my work-related rights.
- Seems like Court would become less predictable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Corporate Lawyer (Denver, CO)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely make compliance predictions more complex, as reinterpretations could happen with each new justice.
- It could lead to overhauls of currently stable legal precedents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I mostly see this as something that happens far away from my daily life.
- If it leads to big legal shifts locally, we'll have to adjust as a community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The environmental rulings could change frequently with new Court compositions, which affects long-term policy sustainability.
- It adds an element of risk to policy planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy could change the dynamics and balance of the Supreme Court more frequently, impacting long-term legal stability.
- Any changes to the judicial branch's operations could have reputational effects on US legal consistency and predictability.
- The administrative cost for implementing and adjusting the pension and benefits for multiple transitions annually.
- Potential political implications and reactions influencing the legislative and executive branches.