Could it be time for term limits on the Supreme Court?

Candidate Joe Biden is facing pressure to declare his position on “packing the Court.” Members of the media lusting for the gotcha moment are aiding Trump by trying to drive a wedge between Biden, who is cautious, and those Democrats fearing a Supreme Court’s striking down past and future legislation they may support.

Biden correctly charges Republicans with hypocrisy in blocking President Barack Obama’s appointment to fill a vacancy nine months before a national election, while now pushing to fill a vacancy with only one month to an election. Historically, the term “packing the Court” applies to FDR’s intent to increase the size of a Supreme Court which struck down New Deal proposals during his first term. Despite FDR’s huge reelection victory, public opinion and senators of his own party forced the president to back down. One associate justice who had been voting against New Deal proposals began voting to uphold them, and soon FDR had the chance to appoint new justices.

“Packing the Court” after every election in which the party previously in opposition takes power will destroy the independence of the court. Biden’s desire to await developments is not evasive. Newly appointed justices do not always render decisions expected by those who appointed them. On the other hand, in times of serious crisis such as we have today, it is not in the national interest for a court of lifetime appointees to thwart the will of the people registered in several national elections.

Perhaps it is time to set a fixed term of, say, 12 years from the time of appointment at which time a Supreme Court justice must resign or face reconfirmation. Perhaps there is a certain category of case, such as affordable, universal health care, for example, where existing legislation must remain in effect until a proposal to replace it is enacted.

Daniel C. Hudson Ridgefield