Staff Reports
In an intriguing twist of fate, President Joe Biden has decided to spend his time off the campaign trail to propose a “reform” plan for the Supreme Court. This plan, dubbed a legislative gift to his political legacy and his presumed successor Kamala Harris, consists of three key components: imposing term limits, establishing a new ethics code, and revoking the immunity granted to presidents for their official acts. However, Biden’s timing is questionable since public trust in the Supreme Court has waned more among Democrats than any other group.
It turns out that the decrease in public confidence in the Supreme Court corresponds almost exclusively with a drop among Democrats who have suddenly discovered that the court does not always align with their preferences. The court still enjoys approval ratings that exceed every government institution, excluding the military and police, and is well above the media, which has been eager to pounce on any perceived court misstep. The supposed debates about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy seem to be little more than a melodramatic performance by progressives who can’t handle the court’s conservative turn. Their cries for reform often mask a desire to reshape the court to better suit their ideological leanings.
Must Read from @ishapiro: Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reforms are bad policy and politicshttps://t.co/0Ha9lx3o26
— JCN (@judicialnetwork) August 9, 2024
Historically, it has been Republicans who have turned judicial nominations into a powerful electoral tool, with remarkable success in 2016 when they ushered Trump into the Oval Office. Yet the Democrats somehow seem to believe they can flip the narrative this time around. However, any attempt to flirt with court-packing—akin to FDR’s infamous disaster in the 1930s—could spark a backlash that Democrats would regret, much like their predecessors who meddled in judicial processes faced dire consequences.
Biden’s concept of 18-year staggered term limits on Supreme Court justices may sound appealing at first glance—a new vacancy every two years—however, it raises a series of constitutional concerns. Implementing such a scheme would require a constitutional amendment, a feat that likely requires an act of Congress not in the mood for change, especially one that might look a lot like court-packing. Creating predictable vacancies while simultaneously forcing justices like Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito into retirement may well cross the line, making this proposal as slippery as it is ambitious.
As for the ethics code, it appears to be a solution desperately searching for a problem. Justices have voluntarily abided by rules applicable to lower court judges, and earlier this year, they even unveiled a new ethics code themselves. Despite the media frenzy over perceived conflicts of interest—most notably surrounding Justice Thomas and Alito—there’s no substantiated evidence of corruption. Instead, it’s become a priority for those seeking to undermine a court whose composition leans conservative, and any regulatory oversight could easily be deemed unconstitutional.
Biden’s third proposal to strip away presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is less groundbreaking and more a political stunt than a substantive reform. Questions abound regarding the balance between lawful presidential actions and overreach, all while revealing that voters didn’t send Biden to Washington for overzealous scrutiny of Trump-era actions. While Biden’s proposals may sound progressive, they really echo historical attempts by desperate leaders to manipulate judicial power. As history has shown, the road down this path rarely ends in triumph for those who venture there, particularly for a president eager to please a radical fringe of his party. This approach of indirectly attempting to alter the Supreme Court’s function may well lead to the very consequences the Democrats are trying to avoid.
