Defenders of lifetime judicial tenure argue the Framers guaranteed federal judges lifetime appointments "to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of justice"—protecting justices from political pressure by eliminating worries about their next job. Critics of term limits warn that forcing justices off the bench after fixed periods could make them more susceptible to public opinion and political influence, especially as younger justices consider post-Court employment with law firms or advocacy groups.
Opponents also predict term limits would increase political instability, with each administration trying to gerrymander the Court around which cases they want decided over the next few years. A Supreme Court welcoming a new justice every two years and turning over completely every 18 years could destabilize legal doctrine, making precedents less reliable. Changing to term limits by statute rather than constitutional amendment could trigger partisan retaliation, with each party manipulating Court composition through legislation whenever they control Congress and the presidency.