Executive term limits and the case for regular politicians
Gary Johnson, introduced by Bob Zadek as a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, states plainly that he believes in term limits and that as a result of term limits politicians do things that they would not ordinarily do for the benefit of citizens. Zadek notes that Johnson was term-limited out after two terms and has not been a career politician since, comparing him to General Washington, who turned his back on a third term. Libertarians For Change (2010)
Johnson ties his governorship to a single standard: everything was going to be a cost-benefit analysis, about best product, best service at the lowest price, and he says he was re-elected on the basis of over-delivering on that first promise. He describes starting a one-person handyman operation in Albuquerque in 1974, growing it by 1994 to a thousand employees in electrical, mechanical, plumbing and pipefitting work, and selling it in 1999 with nobody losing their job. Libertarians For Change (2010)
Zadek uses that biography to press a broader complaint about career politicians, naming Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and Barney Frank as people who never had to deal with the financial issues they themselves create. He cites the story of Bush senior being astonished by a supermarket barcode scanner, and mentions a movement he calls the 27th Amendment movement, which he says seeks to amend the Constitution so that Congress is subject to every law it enacts and every benefit it gets. Libertarians For Change (2010)
Judicial term limits
In a later episode, Zadek calls term limits for the Supreme Court the one change he would make if he could make only one, and Larry Klayman responds that he would impose term limits on the Supreme Court and on federal judges. Klayman, described as the founder of Judicial Watch and of Freedom Watch, also says he believes the country needs to start over in how the government is structured, and that most conservatives fear a constitutional convention would let liberals make things worse. Who’s Looking Out for Us? (2012)
Zadek frames the question of life tenure through life expectancy, observing that Social Security benefits at 65 were a great idea if everybody died at 64, and asking whether term limits for life is one of those ideas that works if people die young and does not work if they live a long time. Ilya Somin, identified as a professor of law at George Mason University, answers that the original decision may have made sense in 1787, when life expectancies were much lower and the federal government was much less powerful, and notes that in the 1790s people resigned from the Supreme Court, in at least one case to become state Supreme Court justices. How to Create a Legitimacy Crisis (2019)
Somin says that today people live longer and stay on the court for 25, 30 or more years, creating a risk that justices remain even when age or senility has diminished their abilities and when they become out of touch with technological and social developments. He imagines justices serving 50, 60 or 70 years if life expectancy rises to 110 or 120, and says lifetime tenure would then become indefensible. He calls a standard proposal a term limit of 18 years, which with nine justices would open a new seat every two years, and says he can imagine 20, 22 or 24 years as reasonable, long enough that the court would clearly be the terminal job of a career. How to Create a Legitimacy Crisis (2019)
Asked whether a term-limited justice should be allowed to be renominated, Somin says it could be argued either way but that his temptation is to say no, because a justice could tailor decisions in the last few years to the preferences of whatever president might renominate them. He offers an alternative: that a justice term-limited out be allowed to become a court of appeals judge. Zadek pushes back, suggesting a president would know that a justice who changed her decision-making standard was currying favor, and that this would not be persuasive. How to Create a Legitimacy Crisis (2019)
Judicial independence and the libertarian constitution
Timothy Sandefur, discussing what Zadek calls the libertarian constitution, explains that the rationale behind life tenure is to make judges independent of popular will within acceptable boundaries, so that they do not stick their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, while making sure they are not turned into kings. He says he is open to the argument for something like a 30-year or 25-year term limit, that he has no principled opposition to such a thing, and that the authors saw no reason to fiddle with it in their Constitution. Timothy Sandefur on The Libertarian Constitution (2021)
Zadek raises the pressure on judges to time their retirements when the right president is in office, which he calls ugly and unpleasant, with strategy determining which president appoints more judges. He quotes Ilya Shapiro as having said one and a half or two cheers for term limits for Supreme Court judges, meaning Shapiro welcomed the discussion mildly without feeling strongly. Sandefur agrees on the reason: the authors were much more concerned with the power of Congress and the president than with the courts, because Congress violates rights every single day of our lives, while the courts, though sometimes doing very big bad things, are for the most part much safer than the other branches. Timothy Sandefur on The Libertarian Constitution (2021)
Across episodes: from executive experience to judicial design
The topic shifts between the 2010 and 2012 episodes, where term limits are argued from the experience of a term-limited governor and paired with proposals for a recall provision or a vote of no confidence, and the 2019 and 2021 episodes, where the argument narrows to the federal judiciary and is conducted in terms of life expectancy, judicial independence and specific term lengths. Gary Johnson and Larry Klayman advance the earlier treatment, while Ilya Somin and Timothy Sandefur supply the later one, with Somin favoring some term limit and Sandefur open to one without insisting on it.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the text or amendment number of any term-limits proposal, nor the name of any bill or ballot measure. They do not report whether any term limit was enacted, nor any vote, ruling or effective date. The 2019 episode’s excerpt consists of a summary and a single section, and the 2012 excerpt breaks off mid-sentence in the middle of a caller’s remarks.