Staff Reports
President Biden’s recent proposal to shake up the Supreme Court is garnering attention, mainly because it is as practical as a chocolate teapot. Legal experts from all political backgrounds are collectively rolling their eyes, convinced that this ambitious plan will fizzle out faster than a soda left open overnight. The proposal appears to be nothing more than a desperate bid for votes from the far left, showcasing a clear intent to intimidate the Supreme Court into aligning with the Democratic Party’s wishes.
Biden’s plan is essentially a response to recent Supreme Court rulings that don’t sit well with his party, particularly the ruling in Trump v. United States regarding presidential immunity. To combat this, his proposal includes term limits for justices, who currently enjoy lifetime appointments, as well as an ethics code that many believe should have been in place from day one. To sweeten the deal, he also aims to amend the Constitution to clarify that former presidents are not immune from prosecution. While the intention might be noble in the eyes of some, the road to constitutional amendments is paved with obstacles, making the likelihood of success about as reasonable as a snowball’s chance in a sauna.
If Kamala Harris wins the White House, she will almost certainly carry the House and Senate with her.
They will nuke the Senate's legislative filibuster–60 vote threshold–and pack the Supreme Court with radicals.@BrianEFallon, Kamala's top aide, has pushed this for years. https://t.co/LvqCti9Qxp
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) July 29, 2024
The proposal’s centerpiece, dubbed the “No One Is Above the Law Amendment,” aims to unravel the recent 6-3 decision allowing former presidents a significant level of immunity for their official acts. However, as anyone who has ever suffered the bureaucratic process knows, amending the Constitution isn’t exactly a stroll in the park. The requirement of two-thirds approval from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions means that this plan isn’t winning any races in the near future. Legal experts on both sides of the aisle agree: the odds are closer to zero than any realistic chance of success.
Next up on this wild Supreme Court reform tour is Biden’s idea of imposing 18-year term limits on justices. This sounds great in theory, perhaps even trending on Twitter for a few hours, but in practice? Not so much. Even if Democrats managed to squeak this proposal through Congress, it’s almost a given that they’d be met with extensive legal challenges. Congress’s majority can’t agree on last night’s dinner menu, let alone pass something as contentious as term limits for justices.
Biden also suggested creating an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court, where justices would need to disclose gifts and recuse themselves from cases involving conflicts of interest. It’s important to note that establishing such a code would require miraculous cooperation from Congress, and there’s a good chance the effort will collapse under its weight. Legal experts warn that giving anyone other than the justices the power to enforce such a code might lead to a scenario where the Supreme Court operates like a split personality disorder, with no clear leader and even less clarity in the law—certainly not what the founders intended.
Mike Davis, founding figure at the Article III Project and a former clerk to Justice Gorsuch, speculated that Democrats might only have a shot if Vice President Kamala Harris snags the presidency in 2024. If that happens, expect a chaotic flurry of liberal policies aimed at dismantling crucial elements of the judicial system, including court-packing and abolishing the legislative filibuster. While such political maneuvers could dominate the headlines and stir the pot, they would do so at the cost of judicial integrity, reducing the judiciary to a mere tool for political advantage instead of a bulwark for civil liberties. In this funny little game of political chess, the American people might find the stakes are too high for the shiny promises of reform.
