As the Supreme Court makes major decisions and overturns decades-old rulings, accusations of politicization and partisanship are growing.
According to a Gallup poll, as of September, 58% of Americans were dissatisfied with how the courts were doing their job, the highest level in 20 years.
There has been growing criticism of judicial ethics recently after journalists investigated Justice Thomas's failure to report the gift and Justice Alito's family's raising of a flag at his home that has been seen as a symbol of the Capitol rioters.
Last year, the court issued its first-ever code of conduct. But the code lacks enforcement mechanisms, and advocates, including top lawmakers, are calling for stronger and more far-reaching reforms.
They proposed a binding code of ethics, increased the number of judges in the lower courts, created an independent ethics office, and, most importantly, imposed term limits.
Some have suggested adding more judges, but polls show that's largely unpopular among Americans.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, executive director of advocacy group Demand Justice, told the BBC that 18-year term limits could help “depoliticize” the court and make it more representative of the American people.
“That way, every president would have the same number of appointees,” she said. “That would make the Supreme Court more reflective of the will of the people.”
“Right now, the appointments to the Supreme Court are politically coincidental, either by retirement or by unexpected death,” Mrs. Buchanan added. “On the Supreme Court, where we have authority over our rules, a first-term president should not appoint more justices than a two-term president.”
Other experts warned that structural changes that would require constitutional amendments would be impossible or unpopular.
“There’s a lot to be said for stability,” said Clark Neely, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C., that advocates “small government.”
“Even if there are problems, it is better not to change the way a particular institution operates,” he added.
Neely, a former trial lawyer who co-counseled the Supreme Court case that struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun laws in 2008, said any body that has the “final word” on constitutional law is likely to be controversial.
“There’s no getting around it,” he said. “And I don’t think anybody’s really come up with a proposal that clearly has the potential to do better than what we have now.”
