President Biden calls for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the Supreme Court

[bigtree]

Link to tweet

WaPo 7/29: Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law

(excerpt)

___First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/

[polichick]

1. Good start! Dems also have to deal with the corrupt coup creeps...

…on the Court. Thomas and Alito should be impeached based on their corruption. Others should be impeached for lying about respecting precedent. And Kavanaugh must be investigated regarding sexual assault, since over 2000 leads were buried.

Justice for ALL!

[Dennis Donovan]

2. The immediate alternative is packing the court with 3 justices

...but no one has the stomach (or the congress) to do that.

[Traurigkeit]

40. EXPANDING the court is what you meant.

What exists NOW is a "packed" court.
6 of a total of 9 is the definition of "packed"

[betsuni]

3. K&R

[birdographer]

4. Explain to me like I'm six..

The President appoints a justice every 2 years to spend 18 years in court. First, 18 years is one long term, isn't it? That's a generation. Also, wouldn't they pile up if he is appointing one every 2 years to serve for 18 years? Or have I got that right?

[CaptainTruth]

10. The terms would be staggered, starting 2 years apart.

Thus, 1 justice (a different justice each time) would reach the end of their 18 year term every 2 years.

In other words, with the SCOTUS terms staggered 2 years apart (a new justice starts every 2 years), & 9 justices, 2x9=18, so every 2 years 1 of the justices would be at the end of their 18 year term.

[birdographer]

15. Ok, thanks...

I am completely in agreement with this plan, I like every part of it. I'm not contesting it in any way. I am just curious, and typing out loud here.

So...if statistically the life expectancy of a man is somewhere around 73-74 years, but let's call it 75, and an appointee is put in place for 18 years, then statistically speaking, it would be best if the person be appointed at about age 57. A 65-year old man would most likely not survive the 18 year term? (Maybe that doesn't matter? Just call it a life term for them?) Do the 18 years start now for the current judges (many of whom will not make it that long)? If so, and judges are replaced as they keel over, then at the end of the first 18 years, there would be 18 judges, doubling the current number? Replacements would need to be on deck so that there would not be long periods with an even number.

I'm sure this has all been worked out by experts. I'm just curious about how this would work.

[Delmette2.0]

18. What if we have another death on the court close to a presidential election?

Do we let the next President pick an extra Justice?

I think the sitting President should select her/his choice and let the process continue under the next administration.

[Polybius]

38. That would be the most exceptionally hard to pass of the three

It won't even have 100% of support from Democrats.

[Dan]

5. Finally, yes, yes, and yes!

[Dorn]

6. Idea: Judges appointed by non-majorify voted president expire after 4 years

[NH Ethylene]

7. Good job, President Biden.

Now to actually make this happen!

[Grins]

8. I would amend #3 just a tad.

If a Justice with a credible conflict-of-interest and refuses to recuse it can be enforced with the consent of the House and Senate judiciary committees.

That, or the justice can HEAR the case, but cannot vote.

[Tree Lady]

12. And disclosing gifts is still influencing a decision

I think justices should not be able to accept gifts from the public, just friends and family.

[liberalla]

16. Yes, there should be an enforcement mechanism in place

[ancianita]

9. Pretty basic and likely to get bipartisan agreement.

The next president and congress can do the expansion of SCOTUS and the judiciary, and the attendant increases of personnel and budget.

[Layzeebeaver]

11. How does this get rid of the existing human stain on the SCOTUS today

How do we execute a transition from the existing model to the new model?

There needs to be a plan.

[ScratchCat]

13. These are nice, but there's a problem

That is, the current crop of Republicans in Congress will never go for it because the net affect will only be to "punish" Republicans and to single out Republicans as "the bad guys". These changes aren't being proposed because of anything Democrats, liberals or progressives have done. Its because two conservative justices, at minimum, have been acting unethically for years with no plausible Constitutional solution. Biden is essentially asking Republicans to allow Trump to be charged and to allow their favorite justices to have expiration dates. No negative consequence is attached to anyone else. They'll obviously never go for it. Expanding the SCOTUS or limiting terms are not even on the Conservative radar.

[Music Man]

14. One would think these proposals are common sense.

How has it taken nearly 250 years for term limits and a code of ethics to become seriously considered?

[LudwigPastorius]

17. As long as these reforms can be initiated without an Article V convention, I'm down.

All kinds of insane shit could go down at one of those.

[flying_wahini]

19. Whether it passes or not, the SCOTUS knows they are on the chopping block.

A good thing. Besides Biden has immunity NOW, right?
Couldn’t he just wave his Presidential wand and make it so? Technically it wouldn’t be Kamala’s
problem and Joe is leaving soon.

[Zeitghost]

27. No

He just might not be able to be criminally tried for trying to do it.

[DENVERPOPS]

20. I keep reflecting

on what that French? guy said back in the 1700's when we were forming our Democracy:

"Democracy will work, until someone, or some group, figures out they can vote themselves money......"

And......here we are today, folks.........

[sdfernando]

21. Its a start...

but expand the court to 13.

[eppur_se_muova]

22. I would like to suggest a simple change: 9 or 10-year, RENEWABLE terms.

No reason to throw out a justice doing a good job. And less pressure to replace older, EXPERIENCED justices with younger, less experienced ones. I believe both parties need to be relieved of the pressure to favor younger justices. Repugs love it because they only want justices who know how to follow orders (or who can read a bill of sale), but it's bad for Dems to fight fire w/fire. We effectively penalize experience by doing so.

Shorter terms would be acceptable only if there were more than nine seats. It shouldn't be possible to replace the whole bench in four Presidential terms or less.

[rsdsharp]

23. It's odd that he expressly calls for a Constitutional amendment on the immunity issue,

but just calls for Congressional approval for term limits. That would also require a Constitutional amendment, just as Presidential term limits were established by the 22nd Amendment, not just Congressional approval.

[jgmiller]

24. I think there are a couple of reasons

First if you do an amendment then it can't easily be reversed by a corrupt president and congress in the future.

Second and this is the cynical one; the president does need some immunity for official acts. I know lots of people disagree but it's true, unfortunately the court went too far with their decision so we have this mess now. He's trying to cover himself and future presidents. An even more cynical reason would be that he knows an amendment will never happen so this makes him look good without doing anything.

[rsdsharp]

25. My point is that he's calling for Congressional approval for something

(Supreme Court term limits) that can only be achieved through the amendment process set out in Article V. He also supports the argument by saying Congress approved Presidential term limits, when in fact, that too required an amendment to the Constitution — the 22nd.

[jgmiller]

29. Actually Article III does not specify they serve for life

I just read it again and it does not specify any limit which everyone interprets as meaning they serve for life. If you are an originalist then yes it means by default they serve for life since the only thing it mentions is that they serve in good standing.

[rsdsharp]

32. You don't have to be an originalist. The only way they can be removed is by impeachment --

by definition, lack of good behavior. Both Article I and Article II specify terms of years for the office holders (2,4, or 6). There was no limit on the number of possible terms for either of the Houses, or the Presidency, but any office holder could be removed by vote. Obviously, there are now limits to the Presidential term pursuant to the 22nd Amendment.

Article III states judges : [S]hall hold their offices during good behaviour.” Therefore, they can serve until hell freezes over, the resign or die, so long as they do not deviate from “good behavior.” The only way to institute a mechanism to remove a sitting Article III judge or justice during good behavior is by Constitutional Amendment. Disagree? What do you think this Court would do with a Constitutional challenge to a statute instituting term limits for the Court?

[Polybius]

39. Doesn't matter, because it be challenged and go before the Supreme Court

Struck down, 9-0.

[Zeitghost]

28. All of the reforms

Will require amendments. Not sure why the messaging is mixed.

[Think. Again.]

26. It's nice that he's taking the high road...

...even after the supreme court themselves ruled it would be perfectly fine for him to have 6 of them "disappeared" if he felt it was within his duties as President to do so.

[RubyRose]

30. 1 and 3 are possible but good luck changing the

Lifetime appointment granted by article 3 of the constitution.

[Ms. Toad]

37. #1 expressly requires a constitutional amendment. n/t

[kacekwl]

31. Go Joe, make them

defend their corruption and bias.

[Desert grandma]

33. So glad that he put these reforms out there.

It may be more difficult to make these reforms happen, but it is great to see them laid out this way. Now we need a blue wave down ballot!

[Baron2024]

34. God Bless Joe Biden

We desperately need these sorts of reforms of the Supreme Court. I have been advocating for term limits for a long time. And the limitation on Presidential power is extremely important too. We also should have a law that prevents convicted felons from holding Federal elected office, including the Presidency. Once again, Joe shows why he is such a smart politician and policy maker. This is an important move. Joe is showing us how to be useful, effective, and relevant even with just six months to go in his Administration. God Bless Joe Biden!

[oldsoftie]

35. I want to see the GOP vote AGAINST an ethics rule

Make it exactly like the one for Congress

[Ms. Toad]

36. I agree - with a bit of surprise.

I was prepared to disagree with #2, since (1) institutional memory is important and (2) justices tend to mellow and become more liberal over time.

But 18 years is a good amount of institutional memory, and 18 years probably strikes a good balance between mellowing during their tenure - and those who (recently at least) never mellow. Having an enforceable judicial code of ethics will also address the latter - whose judgment may be influenced by "gifts" from those intent on exerting political influence.

[world wide wally]

41. No gifts.