The idea of imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices is actually quite popular among the electorate — yet that support “isn’t catching on among elected officials on Capitol Hill who would be the starting point on any alterations to the makeup of the Supreme Court,” reports The Washington Post.

The reasons why vary. For lots of Democrats and those who have likewise endorsed structural changes, they worry adding term limits would take far too long, considering it would involve an amendment to the constitution. The faster update with a similar impact would be expanding the court via statue, “a far simpler process than passing an amendment,” writes the Post.

“It takes years to work through the state legislatures,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is in favor of court expansion, told the Post. “We don’t have years when the Supreme Court is gutting voting rights, gutting union rights, gutting the equal protection clause and signaling that it’s going to overturn Roe.”

And for many reluctant Republican officials, legal changes to the court appear a part of “a broader effort from Democrats to politicize the judiciary,” writes the Post.

“I think the system has worked well. I don’t see a need to change it,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “The reason they’re talking about changing it is because, you know, Democrats lost elections, which have consequences.”

In general, those in favor of limiting justices’ tenures to say, 18 years, believe it would ensure the court reflects election outcomes over time and allow for more predictable appointments. But opponents think it would harm justices’ ability to remain independent. That said, notes the Post, the U.S. is the world’s only major democracy without either a mandatory retirement age or a term limit for those who serve on its highest court.