Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement — coming on the heels of the chaotic, ugly realpolitik that followed Justice Antonin Scalia’s death — is a good moment to step back and realize just how broken the process for selecting Supreme Court justices now is. 
 
 In 2016, Senate Republicans responded to Antonin Scalia’s death by inventing and establishing the absurd faux principle that open seats on the Supreme Court cannot be filled in an election year. Given that America hosts national elections one out of every two years, that means, in theory, that Supreme Court seats should remain unfilled fully 50 percent of the time. 
 
 Democrats, infuriated by the GOP’s treatment of President Obama and Merrick Garland, filibustered Neil Gorsuch — the kind of broadly qualified nominee who would’ve passed easily in previous eras. In response, Senate Republicans eliminated the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations. 
 
 What we are seeing here is a case of what the political scientist Steven Smith calls “Senate syndrome”: One side breaks a norm or rule, then the other side breaks another in response, and the tit-for-tat escalates until the underlying process is in ruins. That’s now happened with Supreme Court nominations. 
 
 Here, in truth, is where the past few years have left us. The minority party no longer holds a scintilla of power over Supreme Court picks. The majority party can and will jam whomever they want onto the Court, where that person will serve for life. But in times when the Senate and the White House are controlled by different parties — which happens fairly often — there’s almost no chance that any seat on the Court will be filled. 
 
 Imagine, for a minute, that Democrats win the Senate in 2018 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires in 2019. What are the chances, given the precedent of the past few years, that Senate Democrats will permit Trump to replace Ginsburg and give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court? I’d guess somewhere between zero and zero. 
 
 This is an insane way to manage one of the most powerful institutions in American life. But the decorous, gentle equilibrium of yesteryear was also nonsensical. There’s always been something bizarre about the idea that a position as important, as long-serving, and as irreversible as Supreme Court justice should be made based on qualifications rather than ideology. 
 
 Politics isn’t a résumé competition, it’s a contest for power, and the wielding of that power has real consequences. In practice, the Supreme Court decides how elections are funded, whether abortions are legal, whether millions of people will continue to have health insurance — if elected politicians and activist groups see its composition as a matter of life and death, that’s because it often is. 
 
 Yes, Garland was relatively moderate, but if he had replaced Scalia, he would’ve swung the Court to a 5-4 liberal majority, leading to a slew of transformative rulings Republicans would find abhorrent. Yes, Gorsuch was qualified, but he has ruled in ways Democrats find awful, and the clarity of his opinions will not soften their effects. 
 
 For that reason, I don’t blame Republicans for blocking Garland. Nor do I blame Democrats for filibustering Gorsuch. And I do not expect Republicans to give Democrats a sliver of oversight over Kennedy’s replacement. 
 
 But the result of both sides taking SCOTUS nominations as seriously as they deserve to be taken is disastrous — it will become common for seats on the Court, perhaps multiple at one time, to remain open for years, and when they are filled, they will be filled with more extreme candidates. 
 
 The core problem here is the stakes of Supreme Court nominations: They’re too damn high. Candidates serve for life — which, given modern life spans and youthful nominees, can now mean 40 years of decisions — and no one knows when the next seat will open. President Jimmy Carter served four years and saw no open seats. President George H.W. Bush served four years and filled two. Barack Obama served eight years and named two justices. Donald Trump isn’t even two years into his presidency and he’s already been given two vacancies. 
 
 The result isn’t merely an undemocratic branch of government but a randomly undemocratic branch of government. And that randomness, and the stakes of seeing it play out in your side’s favor, makes it necessary to turn Supreme Court nominations into bloodsport. It creates incentives for justices to stay on the bench long after the point at which they should’ve retired, in the hopes that they can outlast an ideologically unfriendly administration — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, is 85, but it’s hard to imagine she won’t do everything in her physical power to hang onto her seat until a Democrat can replace her. It biases presidents toward nominating the youngest qualified jurist they can find, rather than the best jurist they can find. 
 
 We need to deescalate Supreme Court fights. The most obvious way to do that is to limit terms. Holding justices to a 10-year, nonrenewable term would lower the stakes of any individual Supreme Court nomination as well as make the timing of fights more predictable. An idea like this could have bipartisan support — Gov. Rick Perry proposed 18-year terms in the 2012 campaign, making an argument that I think sounds even more persuasive today: 
 
 Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices. 
 
 Implementing a reform like this would be a step toward repairing and normalizing a process that is now dangerously broken, infuriatingly random, and distorting both our politics and the judges we choose to interpret our laws. ||||| The fight over President Trump Donald John TrumpScaramucci warns Trump must 'change tactics now' on trade Trump sought to purchase historic Scottish building for hotel: report Republican wins right to replace Farenthold in Congress MORE’s next nomination to the Supreme Court began almost immediately after the news broke of the opening on Wednesday. 
 
 Moments after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said he would retire, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Appeals court nominees languish in Senate as Flake demands tariff vote Gillibrand incorrectly claims no Democrats voted for Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee MORE (R-Ky.) said the Senate would act before the midterm election to confirm Trump’s next nominee. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 “We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. 
 
 Democrats immediately cried foul, arguing the nomination fight should come next year. 
 
 Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care: Judge blocks Kentucky Medicaid work requirements | Trump officials consider cuts to ObamaCare outreach | House probes HHS office in charge of migrant children Overnight Health Care: Amazon enters the pharmacy business | Two Republicans to play pivotal role in Supreme Court abortion fight | Senate panel approves medical research boost Lewandowski: Pelosi is not the leader of the Democratic Party MORE (N.Y.), recalling the bitter fight over Merrick Garland Merrick Brian GarlandBattle over Trump court pick to be most expensive ever Mitch McConnell’s gamble is about to pay off — big time Dem senator: No argument will 'lay bare' GOP's hypocrisy on Supreme Court MORE’s nomination to the court in 2016, demanded that McConnell hold off until a new Congress is seated in 2019. He said Republicans should let voters weigh in on the choice through the November midterm elections. 
 
 Schumer said it would be the “height of hypocrisy” for Republicans to move quickly after they held open the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat for more than a year in 2016. 
 
 McConnell blocked Garland, former President Obama’s nominee for that seat, from getting even a hearing. He said at the time that voters needed to help decide the ideological balance of the court by picking a new president. 
 
 “Millions of people are just months away from determining the senators who should vote to confirm or reject the president’s nominee, and their voices deserve to be heard,” Schumer said Wednesday. 
 
 Other Democrats, including Minority Whip Dick Durbin Richard (Dick) Joseph DurbinSunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Dem senator blasts administration for 'cruelty and incompetence' after immigration briefing Pentagon moving forward on plans for Trump military parade: report MORE (Ill.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein Dianne Emiel FeinsteinDem senator blasts administration for 'cruelty and incompetence' after immigration briefing Battle over Trump court pick to be most expensive ever Obama expected to hit campaign trail for Dems in September: report MORE (Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, quickly echoed Schumer’s demands. 
 
 McConnell, for his part, called on Democrats to give Trump’s next pick fair consideration. 
 
 “It’s imperative that the president’s nominee be considered fairly and not subjected to personal attacks,” he said. 
 
 Democrats would appear to have little hope of blocking a Trump pick, though Republicans hold just 51 seats and usually have 50 members in the chamber given Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCainSunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Appeals court nominees languish in Senate as Flake demands tariff vote Meghan McCain: �?I’m never going to forgive’ Trump for attacking my father MORE’s (R-Ariz.) battle with brain cancer. 
 
 Still, a vote before the midterm elections could be difficult for a number of Democratic senators facing reelection in states won by Trump, including Sens. Joe Manchin Joseph (Joe) ManchinGillibrand incorrectly claims no Democrats voted for Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee Manchin warns Trump against picking court nominee who will overturn Roe v. Wade Trump to announce Supreme Court pick July 9; two women on short list MORE (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp Mary (Heidi) Kathryn HeitkampSunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Abolishing ICE becomes Dem litmus test Gillibrand incorrectly claims no Democrats voted for Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee MORE (N.D.) and Joe Donnelly Joseph (Joe) Simon DonnellySunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Gillibrand incorrectly claims no Democrats voted for Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee Manchin warns Trump against picking court nominee who will overturn Roe v. Wade MORE (Ind.). 
 
 All are likely to face significant pressure to back Trump’s pick. 
 
 The Judicial Crisis Network, a group that advocates for conservative judges, announced Wednesday it would launch a million-dollar advertising campaign to pressure Democrats in red states to vote for Trump’s nominee. The group spent $10 million to support Justice Neil Gorsuch’s nomination last year. 
 
 “It’s going to be a big battle,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch Orrin Grant HatchAppeals court nominees languish in Senate as Flake demands tariff vote Trump nominee vows to restore 'trust' in IRS IRS nominee owns properties at Trump’s Hawaii hotel MORE (R-Utah), a former Judiciary Committee chairman. 
 
 Republicans think a Supreme Court debate will help rev up their base at a time when polls show Democratic voters are more enthusiastic about voting than Republicans. 
 
 “It does once again heighten the importance of a Republican Senate to voters who are reminded again about how big an impact that the Senate majority has on who serves on the court,” said Sen. Roy Blunt Roy Dean BluntSupreme Court vacancy throws Senate battle into chaos Senate faces bitter fight over Trump’s next pick Election Countdown: Kennedy retirement shakes up midterms | Big primary night for progressives | Fallout from Crowley's defeat | Trump flexes his muscles in GOP primaries | The Hill's Latina Leaders spotlights 2018 candidates MORE (Mo.), a member of the Senate GOP leadership. 
 
 “I think that will encourage people who want to see that majority to continue to get out and work harder than they would have otherwise,” he added. 
 
 Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn John CornynCollins, Murkowski to play pivotal role in Supreme Court abortion battle Senate faces bitter fight over Trump’s next pick Liberal Senate Democrat shields Trump from trade blowback MORE (Texas) said a Supreme Court fight is “one thing that energizes conservatives more than anything else.” 
 
 Abortion is likely to be a flashpoint in the debate, as Kennedy had been the fifth vote for upholding Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that established a right to abortion in 1973. 
 
 Sens. Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsSunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Michael Moore: I'll surround Capitol with 'a million other people' to protest Supreme Court pick Manchin warns Trump against picking court nominee who will overturn Roe v. Wade MORE (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski Lisa Ann MurkowskiSunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Michael Moore: I'll surround Capitol with 'a million other people' to protest Supreme Court pick Manchin warns Trump against picking court nominee who will overturn Roe v. Wade MORE (Alaska) are two Republicans who support abortion rights and are likely to exert significant influence on the debate. 
 
 They voted last year against legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare in part because it would have defunded Planned Parenthood. 
 
 Collins said she would prefer Trump to pick a more centrist judge in the mold of Kennedy, who ruled in cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion. 
 
 “That obviously would be my preference but what I’m most looking for is a justice that will follow the law and the Constitution,” she said. 
 
 “I view Roe v. Wade as being settled law. It’s clearly precedent and I always look for judges who respect precedent,” Collins added. 
 
 Democrats on Wednesday framed the new Supreme Court vacancy as a proxy battle over the future of abortion and reproductive rights, a preview of their strategy for the months ahead. 
 
 “From Day One, President Trump and Vice President Pence have made it clear that turning back the clock on women’s health and reproductive rights is a top priority for them,” Sen. Patty Murray Patricia (Patty) Lynn MurrayLawmakers request new GAO gender pay study Senate faces bitter fight over Trump’s next pick Overnight Health Care — Presented by the Association of American Medical Colleges —Dems, health groups demand immigrant children be quickly reunited with families MORE (D-Wash.) warned on the Senate floor. 
 
 Some GOP lawmakers say they want a conservative justice and have praised the possible candidates Trump listed during the 2016 presidential campaign as acceptable. 
 
 “The president has a lot of good choices. I hope they can give us a good, highly qualified nominee quickly. Then we’ll get on with it,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamSunday shows preview: Supreme Court fight in the spotlight Supreme Court vacancy throws Senate battle into chaos Overnight Defense: House passes 5B defense spending bill | Pentagon moving forward on Trump military parade | Mattis vows 'ironclad' support for South Korea's defense MORE (R-S.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee. 
 
 Trump has released a list of 25 people he would consider for the court, including William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Sen. Mike Lee Michael (Mike) Shumway LeeTrump to announce Supreme Court pick July 9; two women on short list The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Expensive and brutal: Inside the Supreme Court fight ahead Senate passes mammoth farm bill MORE (R) of Utah. 
 
 Graham, the sponsor of a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks, downplayed the likely impact on Roe v. Wade. 
 
 “Roe v. Wade has been affirmed many times in different ways,” he said. “There’s no litmus test.” 
 
 Republicans say they want to get started on the confirmation process as soon as possible. 
 
 “Aug. 1 we need to have someone ready,” said Sen. John Kennedy John Neely KennedyMORE (R-La.), another member of the Judiciary Committee. 
 
 “I want a good lawyer who is whip smart, who is not a hater, who calls the balls and the strikes, who understands the way Madison meant the separation of powers to work, and who will listen to all points of view,” Kennedy added. 
 
 It has taken the Senate between 66 and 87 days to confirm the last four Supreme Court nominees. If that trend holds, it would set up a confirmation vote for October, shortly before Election Day. 
 
 Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed in 2005 in an especially quick time frame, 23 days. 
 
 Kennedy’s resignation will become effective on July 31.
– The fallout from Anthony Kennedy's bombshell decision to retire from the Supreme Court continues to resonate, with President Trump saying he's "honored" that Kennedy has given him an opportunity to pick a successor. Of course, getting him confirmed is another issue, and the Hill digs into the political logistics in the Senate. Republicans have the numbers, but two wild cards are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom support abortion rights and will likely have a big say in who comes next. A remedy: At Vox, Ezra Klein writes that both parties are guilty of turning the nomination process into an "insane" one, given the stakes. At this point, if one party held the White House and the other the Senate, it's unlikely any nominee would be confirmed. His solution? Reduce the stakes by limiting justices to 10-year terms. A big percentage: The Washington Post picks out five times Kennedy cast the deciding vote on big issues, on everything from backing abortion rights to supporting gay rights to curtailing the death penalty. The story notes that of the 276 majority opinions written by Kennedy, 92 came in 5-4 decisions.