I've been pondering the merits of proposals to impose 18-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices, and have decided that I am tentatively in favor of the basic idea.

  It seems to me that 18-year Supreme Court term limits would have some significant advantages over the current system: 1) it would tend to make the direction of the Supreme Court more reflective of public opinion over time and less contingent on the happenstance of who retires; 2) it would discourage Presidents from nominating younger, less-experienced judges to the Supreme Court with the hope that they'll sit on the Court for 50 years, a change that would likely lead to more experienced and more accomplished jurists being nominated; and 3) at the margins, it might lead to a somewhat more modest Supreme Court in some areas, which at least on balance I think is a good thing (although that of course is a complex question subject to many differing opinions). I'm not persuaded by a number of other arguments made in favor of Supreme Court term limits, but I think these three arguments are significant.

  The burden of persuasion is clearly on those making the proposals, as they are recommending a significant change in the judicial structure. But I'm beginning to come around to the view that these proposals make sense.

  UDPATE: I've decided to open comments.