In early 2020, several Democratic presidential candidates including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke offered different proposals to reforming the Supreme Court. The proposals include adding 5 democratically elected judges to the current court and imposing term limits on current judges. According to the U.S. federal statute, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office. Proponents of Supreme Court reform argue that the current court will be filled with too many conservative judges for the next several decades and it is not representative of the US population. Opponents argue that the plans are unconstitutional, would upset the balance of power and reinforce the idea that there are Democratic judges and Republican judges.
54% Yes |
46% No |
43% Yes |
37% No |
10% Yes, but only reform to impose term limits on judges |
5% No, and the Supreme Court should not be politicized |
2% Yes, but only reform to include more seats |
3% No, reforming the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and would upset the balance of power |
See how support for each position on “Supreme Court Reform” has changed over time for 101k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Supreme Court Reform” has changed over time for 101k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9B6C78H1yr1Y
No, do not add seats and require judges to pass a mental competency test instead of setting term limits
@8TH779G3yrs3Y
No, do not add seats and set age limits instead of term limits
@8S3VK733yrs3Y
Yes, but I would prefer to abolish the Supreme Court
@9C69K6811mos11MO
Yes, but I would prefer to abolish the Supreme Court.
@ISIDEWITH10mos10MO
Yes, although abolishing the supreme court would be better
@9CNX3B99mos9MO
No, do not add seats and require judges to pass an annual mental competency test instead of setting term limits
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Supreme Court Reform” news articles, updated frequently.
@EcstaticThirdParty4mos4MO
The law, passed by the Israeli Parliament in July, had sharply divided Israelis and sparked mass protests. Monday’s ruling raised the prospect of renewed discord as Israel wages war in Gaza.Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition, the most right-wing and religiously conservative in Israel’s history, has argued that the Supreme Court has overreached its authority and subverted the will of the voters and the function of the elected government. They argue that the legal concept of “reasonableness” — which the court used a year ago to strike down Mr. Netanyahu’s appointment as finance minister of a political ally who had been convicted of tax fraud — is ill defined and subjective.Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party called the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday “in opposition to the nation’s desire for unity, especially in a time of war.” They slammed the court for ruling on the issue when Israeli soldiers are “fighting and endangering themselves in battle.”Kaplan Force, one of the activist groups that organized protests against the judicial reform, praised the Supreme Court’s decision and called on all parties to obey the ruling. “Today, one chapter ended in the battle to protect democracy — in a victory for the citizens of Israel,” the group said in a statement.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
