In an era of political decay, the Supreme Court stands out for its rigorous and respected process. First-hand observation reveals a level of institutional sanctity largely absent from other government branches. However, this functionality is fragile and under threat from political movements aiming to alter its structure.

The Supreme Court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional—its main function today—is not explicitly mentioned in Article 3. This power of judicial review was established by the Court itself in the early 19th century, fundamentally shaping its role in the U.S. government's balance of powers.

Historian Jill Lepore argues that judicial originalism is not history. It artificially limits its sources to a few legal documents like the Federalist Papers, ignoring the broader context a professional historian would use. This creates a skewed, lawyerly version of the past rather than a genuine historical understanding.

The argument for term limits isn't just about constitutional law; it's a fundamental recognition of human psychology. Power corrupts, and leaders who stay too long become convinced only they are right. The system is designed to forcibly introduce new perspectives and prevent the slide into tyranny, regardless of a president's popularity.

Congress can alter the number of Supreme Court justices and even limit the types of cases the court can hear—a power known as "jurisdiction stripping"—through simple legislation. Despite this authority, a deep-seated political norm has prevented Congress from exercising it aggressively, leaving its full constitutional extent untested.

Contrary to popular belief, Article 3 of the Constitution provides a sparse blueprint for the federal judiciary. It establishes "one Supreme Court" but delegates the creation of lower courts and even the Supreme Court's size to congressional legislation, making the judiciary's structure far more flexible than assumed.

The U.S. is unique among developed nations for granting judges life tenure. While intended to ensure independence, this practice incentivizes justices to strategically retire under a politically aligned president, injecting politics into the end of their careers just as it exists at the beginning.

As the formal amendment process became politically impossible, the Supreme Court's role expanded dramatically. It became the de facto forum for constitutional change, a shift driven by the paralysis of the legislative amendment route, which both political parties now exploit.

Many societal problems, from political gridlock to demographic collapse, are exacerbated by entrenched older leaders who won't leave power. Implementing structural reforms like age gates and term limits for critical roles like the Supreme Court would inject new perspectives and prevent the calcification of power.