Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for term limits, ethics, court size, and whether the highest court in the land should answer to anyone.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares Supreme Court reform approaches — but there's much more to explore.
The Supreme Court has become the most politically consequential institution in American government — and the least accountable. Nine unelected justices serving unlimited terms can override any law passed by Congress and any action taken by the president. They face no ethics requirements, no binding recusal rules, no financial disclosure standards comparable to other branches, and no mechanism for accountability short of impeachment. This was not what the Founders intended.
The average Supreme Court tenure has increased from 15 years in the early republic to over 25 years today, as justices are appointed younger and live longer. A single justice can shape American law for four decades. Whether a president gets zero appointments or three depends on luck and timing rather than democratic mandate. The result is a system where Supreme Court vacancies have become existential political battles, confirmation processes have devolved into partisan warfare, and public trust in the Court has collapsed.
The three major approaches to this crisis differ fundamentally. Democrats favor structural expansion and ethics reform. Republicans oppose any changes to the Court's structure. The Common Good Party proposes depoliticizing the Court through term limits, binding ethics, and transparent processes — preserving judicial independence while ending the broken system that has turned every vacancy into a national crisis.
How the three approaches stack up on Supreme Court reform.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Term limits | Some support 18-year terms | Oppose — life tenure is constitutional | 18-year staggered terms, 2 per presidential term |
| Court size | Some propose expanding to 13 | Keep at 9, codify by law | Keep at 9 — term limits solve the problem |
| Ethics code | Binding code with enforcement | Court should self-regulate | Binding code, independent enforcement body |
| Appointment process | Reform — end filibuster for nominees | Current system, Senate prerogative | Guaranteed hearings within 90 days, bipartisan panel |
| Judicial review | Support — concern over activist rulings | Support — textualist/originalist approach | Preserve judicial review, depoliticize appointment |
| Recusal rules | External review of recusal decisions | Justices decide their own recusals | Retired judge panel reviews recusal motions, binding |
| Financial disclosure | Full, public, real-time | Current requirements sufficient | Same standard as Congress — public, audited, timely |
| Court expansion | Some support, commission studied it | Firmly oppose | Oppose — expansion triggers arms race |
| Precedent protection | Codify key precedents into statute | Court can and should revisit precedent | Supermajority (6-3) required to overturn precedent |
| Enforcement | Congressional oversight, legislation | Internal self-governance | Independent judicial ethics commission |
Sources: Gallup, Brennan Center for Justice, Fix the Court, Supreme Court financial disclosures, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats have proposed multiple reform measures: expanding the Court from 9 to 13 justices (the Judiciary Act), imposing binding ethics requirements, requiring greater financial disclosure, and establishing term limits. President Biden's 2021 Supreme Court commission studied these proposals without making formal recommendations. Some Democrats support all of these reforms; others support only ethics measures. The party is not unified on court expansion.
Democrats are right that the current system is broken. The lack of a binding ethics code is indefensible. Financial disclosure gaps allow justices to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in unreported gifts. Self-policing on recusal has failed visibly. The push for transparency and accountability is not partisan — it's basic governance. Every other federal judge in America operates under stricter ethical oversight than the nine most powerful judges in the country.
Court expansion is the wrong solution. Adding four seats would give Democrats a temporary majority, but it would set the precedent for the next Republican majority to add more seats — creating an ever-expanding Court with zero legitimacy. FDR's court-packing attempt in 1937 failed precisely because the public recognized it as a power grab. The Democratic coalition's inability to unify around structural reform — term limits, ethics, transparent process — weakens its credibility and makes all reform easier to dismiss as partisan overreach.
For more on judicial reform frameworks, see the full SCOTUS reform explainer.
Republicans oppose virtually all structural reforms to the Supreme Court. They support life tenure as constitutionally mandated, oppose court expansion, resist binding ethics legislation as congressional overreach into the judicial branch, and argue that the Court should self-regulate. Some Republicans support codifying the 9-justice Court to prevent future expansion. The party's position is essentially: the system works as designed, and any reform is a power grab.
Judicial independence is genuinely important, and some reform proposals do threaten it. Court expansion for partisan purposes would be destructive. The separation of powers means Congress should be careful about imposing requirements on a co-equal branch. And there is a legitimate originalist argument that the Constitution's "good behaviour" clause was intended to ensure judges could not be removed for unpopular decisions. These are serious concerns that deserve engagement.
The argument that the system works as designed ignores the fact that the system has changed fundamentally since the founding. Average tenure has nearly doubled. Confirmation has gone from routine to partisan warfare. The stakes of each vacancy have escalated because of expanded judicial power and longer service. "Self-regulation" has demonstrably failed — justices have accepted undisclosed luxury travel, ruled on cases involving parties who paid them, and resisted even basic transparency measures.
The Republican position is also inconsistent. The party blocked Merrick Garland's nomination for nearly a year, rushed Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation in weeks, and has proposed constitutional amendments limiting the Court in other contexts. Opposition to reform is not principled; it's strategic — the current Court has a conservative supermajority, and any change risks that advantage. Principled conservatism would recognize that accountability mechanisms strengthen institutions rather than weaken them.
For more on the confirmation process crisis, see our SCOTUS reform explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes structural reform that depoliticizes the Court without packing it. Our plan: 18-year staggered terms, giving every president exactly two appointments per four-year term; a binding ethics code enforced by an independent judicial ethics commission; mandatory recusal review by a panel of retired federal judges; financial disclosure requirements matching congressional standards; guaranteed confirmation hearings within 90 days of nomination; and a supermajority requirement (6-3) to overturn established precedent. We keep the Court at 9 justices.
Unlike the Democratic approach, we oppose court expansion — it's a short-term fix that creates a worse long-term problem. Unlike the Republican approach, we don't pretend the current system works. Staggered 18-year terms solve multiple problems at once: every president gets the same number of appointments (eliminating the lottery), vacancies are predictable (reducing confirmation warfare), no justice serves for 35+ years (preventing any individual from disproportionately shaping law for generations), and the Court gradually reflects the will of the electorate over time rather than the luck of who dies or retires when.
Term limits for constitutional court justices are the international norm, not the exception. Germany, France, Italy, South Korea, and most other democracies impose fixed terms or retirement ages. These courts maintain their independence while ensuring democratic accountability. Polling consistently shows that 75%+ of Americans support Supreme Court term limits — one of the few policy proposals with genuine bipartisan support. The current system, where a justice appointed at 49 can serve for 40 years, is not judicial independence — it's a structural deficiency that concentrates enormous power in a single unaccountable individual.
Supreme Court decisions affect every American's daily life. Here's what structural reform would mean in practice.
Want to explore how the full Common Good platform addresses government accountability? See our policies on ethics, term limits, and campaign finance.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about Supreme Court reform.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full SCOTUS reform explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into Supreme Court reform.
The most powerful court in the world should be the most transparent. Read the full plan and see which approach actually restores trust in the judiciary.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.