This unfairness born of randomness isn’t the only problem. Given the deep partisan polarization in America, lifetime appointments have also turned confirmations into epic political battles. That’s why the Brett Kavanaugh process feels so momentous. It’s why the Merrick Garland process — or the lack of one — still enrages so many people.

“It makes the stakes too high,” the political scientist Lee Drutman wrote this summer in Vox. “So here’s a simple idea to dial down some of the destructive warfare of the Supreme Court confirmation process: term limits for Supreme Court justices.”

Yes, indeed. Term limits for the court are an excellent idea. It would take a constitutional amendment, but that’s O.K. The United States has already amended its Constitution 27 times — or an average of about once every nine years. We are overdue for at least one more amendment.

The most appealing idea to me is staggered 18-year terms on the court, with each four-year presidential term automatically bringing two appointments. Such a system would be more consistent with democratic principles. It would have several ancillary benefits, too. Aging justices would no longer hang on to their jobs past the point when they should (which has been a real problem in the past). And as Ornstein notes, highly qualified candidates in their late 50s and early 60s — who are now largely ignored by presidents — would be considered for the court.

There would still be some details to work out, such as the transition from the current system to the new one. The new law would also need a mechanism to prevent the opposing party in the Senate from denying a president a justice. But all of that is workable.