Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Commuting America’s life sentence

Justice Clarence Thomas being sworn in

Clarence Thomas was the second-youngest person named to the Supreme Court in the 20th century.

Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

A few decades ago, some savvy operatives on the right came to understand the immense political advantages of selecting judges and Supreme Court nominees young enough to serve almost in perpetuity. The most prominent of these early post-pubescent nominees, Clarence Thomas in 1991, was also the most contentious, at least until recently. The Anita Hill storm aside, Thomas was considered neither a brilliant legal scholar nor possessed of a long history of judicial achievement. He had been a judge for only 18 months. But that was hardly the point.


And so, President George H.W. Bush, after proclaiming an exhaustive search for the best qualified man or woman to help steer the nation’s search for justice, settled on the 43-year-old Thomas, the second youngest person to be named to the court in the 20th century. That the arch-conservative Thomas, the second Black Supreme Court nominee, was to fill the seat of the first Black Supreme Court nominee, the towering Thurgood Marshall, inflamed passions on the left but Thomas survived both scandal and mediocrity to squeak by in the Senate.

That a man whose main, if not only, qualification to be chosen for the nation’s highest tribunal was his youth was due solely to the interpretation of the phrase “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” as meaning “for life.” Given that reading of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, the only way to replace a justice is if a majority of the House votes to indict them for a crime or other impeachable offense and two-thirds of the Senate agrees. As only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached — Samuel Chase in 1804 — and none convicted, removal for cause is unlikely at best. If anything, Thomas’ ability to blithely ignore the outrage surrounding his wife’s blatantly partisan shenanigans with far-right conspiracy theorists, what used to be called “the lunatic fringe,” is ample testimony that successful impeachment is a near impossibility.

With the guarantee of lengthy service came an extreme increase in the stakes — thus Republicans’ refusal to consider Merrick Garland, the beer brawl over Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and the shoehorn confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. In addition, by limiting appointments to men and women too young to join AARP, the nation has effectively eliminated an entire range of highly accomplished and respected jurists, lawyers and legal scholars from consideration. Marshall, who was 60 at the time of his appointment, as was Oliver Wendell Holmes, would not even make the short list today.

One of the proposals for restoring some degree of fairness to the appointment process, as well as curbing what has become the court’s virtually unchecked power, is the institution of term limits. But this approach, despite its obvious advantages in creating a more balanced court, has been considered undoable through ordinary legislation because, with lifetime tenure enshrined in Article III, any attempt to alter that arrangement would require an amendment, another unwieldy and improbable prospect.

Except that Article III actually enshrines no such thing.

It can just as easily be postulated that what the Framers had in mind was not that judges could remain on the bench until they keeled over, but rather that, as long as they discharged their duties professionally, they could not be removed solely for their political views. In addition to their failed Chase impeachment, Jeffersonians tried to pry John Pickering out of his seat as a federal District Court judge in 1803, claiming “drunkeness” when it was actually a transparent attempt to erode Federalist influence in the judiciary. Both Pickering and Chase survived because the only real charges against them were strictly political. Thomas Jefferson himself made little secret of his desire to try to remove his cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall, in favor of his friend Spencer Roane, but Marshall, as agile politically as they come, gave him no opening.

Regardless, many scholars insist that the Framers equated “good behavior” with “for life” as a generally accepted concept, and so the two phrases are interchangeable. There is, however, a good bit of evidence to indicate this was not the case.

During the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when the delegates were deciding both the manner of selecting senators and their terms of office, a proposal was made that senators serve without the need for reappointment. Gouverneur Morris, the man who wrote the final draft of the Constitution, commented that while the Senate should possess an “aristocratic spirit,” “a Senate for life” would be “noble bait” to potential demagogues who sought such an appointment as a base of power. If anyone would know the difference between “good behavior” and “life,” it was Morris.

In addition, while debating a president’s proposed term of office, Virginia’s George Mason responded to Alexander Hamilton’s suggestion that the executive “be vested with lifetime tenure or at least tenure during good behavior,” insisting that “good behavior” could be construed as “a softer name only for executive for life.” It seems that both Hamilton and Mason recognized the difference in the two terms as well. Thus, if the Framers intended judges to serve “for life,” it would have been a simple matter for Morris to draft the sentence to make that intention clear.

There is indirect evidence as well. For four long, hot months in Philadelphia in 1787, delegates who did not know and often did not like one another wrangled to try to find a means of government that would provide some centralized authority without granting any branch sufficient tools to wield despotic power over either the other branches or the states. It stretches credibility to believe that in the midst of these often acrimonious negotiations, the delegates would be willing to create one branch that consisted of unelected, lifetime members with no checks on their authority or power, short of impeachment, which was made intentionally impracticable.

If, therefore, Article III is read the way the Framers likely intended, establishing term limits for justices would not require a constitutional amendment, just an act of Congress. If such a law would pass and be signed by the president, the nation would not only return a degree of civility to a process that has careened hopelessly out of control, but we could once again begin to choose members of the nation’s highest and most powerful court on the basis of their achievements, rather than just their longevity.

Read More

Trump Takes U.S. to War

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation accompanied by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from the White House on June 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

Photo by Carlos Barria - Pool/Getty Images

Trump Takes U.S. to War

Washington — President Donald Trump announced Saturday evening that the United States had launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, describing the operation as a "spectacular military success."

In a televised address, he stated that key Iranian nuclear enrichment sites had been "completely and totally obliterated". He warned that any future attacks would be "far greater and a lot easier."

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA’s War on the Social Fabric
The urgency to defeat authoritarianism to save freedom and justice
rarrarorro/Getty Images

MAGA’s War on the Social Fabric

In the first article of this series, we explored how the collapse of civil society left Americans vulnerable to authoritarian appeals. Here, we look at why those same civic institutions—newsrooms, libraries, unions, school boards—are the first targets of authoritarian movements.

Voting, while important, doesn’t keep democracy alive. It needs places where people gather in person to solve problems, such as school board meetings, union halls, local newspapers, block clubs, libraries, and faith-based nonprofits. These institutions form what social scientists call civil society—a network of voluntary groups that connect people with government. They are where democratic habits are learned: negotiation, compromise, listening, and the capacity to see one’s neighbor not as an enemy, but as a fellow citizen.

Americans once had these civic skills in abundance. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that America’s genius for democracy came not from its laws or geography, but from its unrivaled ability to form associations. Today, these associations create what Robert Putnam called bridging social capital—relationships that connect people across lines of difference. This is the social fabric that democracy needs to breathe.

But that fabric is fraying. And when it frays, so do the habits that make pluralism possible.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need Critical Transformational Leaders Now More Than Ever

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) listens at a news conference following the weekly Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

We Need Critical Transformational Leaders Now More Than Ever

The image of U.S. Senator Alex Padilla—handcuffed and dragged away while advocating for immigrant rights—is more than symbolic. It’s a chilling reminder that in America today, even the highest-ranking Latino officials are not immune from the forces of erasure. This moment, along with ICE raids in Los Angeles, an assault on DEI in education, and the Tennessee Attorney General’s lawsuit seeking to dismantle funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), signals a coordinated assault on Latino dignity, equity, and belonging. These are not isolated events. They are part of a broader backlash against racial justice, driven by white supremacy and an entrenched fear of demographic and cultural change.

As a scholar of race, leadership, and equity in higher education, I know this moment calls for something deeper than mere outrage. It calls for action. We need what I call Critical Transformational Leaders—individuals who act with moral courage, who center justice over comfort, and who are unafraid to challenge systemic racism from positions both high and humble.

Keep ReadingShow less
Proposed Child Tax Credit Changes Could Push Millions of Kids Into or Deeper Into Poverty
girl in white tank top holding brown wooden tray with brown and black ceramic mug
Photo by Jane Maple on Unsplash

Proposed Child Tax Credit Changes Could Push Millions of Kids Into or Deeper Into Poverty

WASHINGTON–Changes to the Child Tax Credit in the House reconciliation bill would strip benefits from millions of children in immigrant and mixed-status families, while expanding credits for wealthier households, economists said.

“If you were concerned about children’s well-being, you wouldn’t be looking for excuses to remove children from the Child Tax Credit and push them into poverty,” said Adam Ruben, Director of Economic Security Project Action.

Keep ReadingShow less