Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes

[lanlady]

Source: Washington Post

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
Cut through the 2024 election noise.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-reforms/

---

This is GREAT news.

[GreenWave]

1. Go get 'em Joe!

[cstanleytech]

2. That's going to require an amendment to the Constitution itself.

[Think. Again.]

4. Yes, that's what the article says he's going for.

[cstanleytech]

5. Not in a chance in hell of passing in red states though because it would cost them SCOTUS control

[Polybius]

6. So why ever try?

It's impossible.

[orangecrush]

22. This

Negativity gets old fast.

[Polybius]

23. You're free to bookmark and come back in 20 years

There's little chance that there will be another Amendment. It's called realistic.

[peppertree]

27. Sad - but true

Unless he's working on a far-reaching (and, according to the Chicken Supremes themselves, unreviewable) executive order, it would be an exercise in futility.

[GenThePerservering]

29. It's called sitting on your hands

and doing nothing.

We have to start somewhere.

[Polybius]

31. Not all Congressional Democrats even support term limits on SC Justices

Many of DU doesn't either.

[orangecrush]

50. But that was before USSC gave Joe superpowers

[Polybius]

51. No, they just said that Presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts

Anything courts deem unconstitutional can and will still be struck down.

[orangecrush]

52. We shall see

[Hermit-The-Prog]

37. Woe is me. Let's never start and we will never have to finish.

[Zeitghost]

94. Because it's a waste of political capital on a piece of legislation that has no hope of passing

And in a distant hypothetical future where we did have a 67% majority of the Congress and the States we would no longer need to "fix" the court.

Same goes for the Electoral College. It's only a problem because of how close things are divided between left and right. In a world in which we controlled enough of Congress/States to remove it, we would no longer need to remove it.

[Think. Again.]

7. Love ya, but I'll trust Biden on things like this.

[cstanleytech]

43. I trust Biden, it's the Republicans I don't trust.

[joshdawg]

71. I agree.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to trust a republican again. If I could have voted for Eisenhower, I would have, but much too young then....seven in '52. Republicans since him have all been untrustworthy especially the former guy, djt. And that's just looking at the Presidency, not the other jerks infecting the Senate and House. heavy sigh

[Walleye]

53. Me too this is not something he will not take up without thinking it through

His years of experience as chairman on the judiciary committee will help. But it seems like the Supremes might try to keep him from winning reelection if he’s promising to do something to the court. They don’t want their little closed club to have any rules at all.

[Think. Again.]

61. The supremes are already trying to keep him from winning reelection.

[Walleye]

66. Joe is a force for good, so all the forces of evil are against him

[Think. Again.]

67. You don't know how much I agree with you on that.

[Walleye]

68. The forces of evil are very strong. We must be stronger

[Think. Again.]

69. We are stronger, always have been...

...but part of being good is self-restricting that strength to stay good.

They don't have that disadvantage.

[Walleye]

70. That is a very good point and a good way of putting it

And don’t you know evil always uses our virtues against us.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

38. Setting the goal may go a long way toward changing some red places blue.

[cstanleytech]

45. That I'll agree with you on as it can help us down the road even though the odds are I'll win the mega million jackpot.

[Captain Zero]

123. An amendment could grandfather in current members with no term limits

Would take effect with members appointed after the amendment is ratified.
Theoretically that should make both parties happy.

[Think. Again.]

3. Go Joe!!! 🌊 !!!

Hopefully there will be major changes to the number of (so-called) justices!

[brakester]

86. Add more...

justices is the way to go. Biden has always been a strong institutionalist.

But, it is long past that point. We are in an ancient Pinto without brakes heading towards the wall called dictatorship at 200 mph!

Add more justices, Mr. President!

[Think. Again.]

103. There are multiple precedents for changing the size of the SC.

If that's what needs to be done, even an institutionalist should be comfortable with that.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. This is making the big news outlet "breaking news" rounds - Here is a no paywall link

No paywall (gift)

Wapo was the originator of the story.

[TygrBright]

9. It's a Big Deal. He's talking Constitutional Amendment. That will increase turnout! n/t

[Diraven]

15. No one gets to vote on it though

We'd have to get 2/3 of either Congress or the state legislatures to even start it.

[The Grand Illuminist]

21. That is the absolute impossible traditionally

It will take an Article V convention to do this.

[Farmer-Rick]

82. He is ALSO working on legislation

"changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code."

It would be better in my opinion to just increase the number of justices. Nine is way too few. Most other countries have much more judges at that level. I think 13 maybe 21 would be nice round numbers. The more judges the harder it is to pack with crazies.

And yeah, an enforceable code of ethics is why the constitution says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" It assigns Congress that responsibilities of determining good behavior.

It certainly isn't good behavior to take bribes and meet with enemies of the United States and foreign brutal dictators.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about lifetime appointments. That was made up.

[Zeitghost]

96. And the mechanism given by the Constitution to Congress

To determine "good behavior" is the impeachment process.

That is the only way to remove a Justice on any grounds and to change that will require an amendment, not just regular legislation.

[intheflow]

10. That's what I'm talking!

Go, Joe!!

[lefthandedskyhook]

11. An important step

I hope I live to see a decisive step

[Cheezoholic]

12. BFD!! For President Biden to agree to stir up institutional govt. is a BFD!!!!

He's always been a hardcore and I mean hardcore institutionalist, maybe that's obvious lol. But this is the first REAL sign of the old guard (not because of his age) handing off the torch to the progressive movement in the party.

It's also great news for down ticket Dems because he's gonna need help and SCOTUS reform is right up there with abortion, saving democracy and the economy if you believe voter opinion polls. This will be another rocket in their pocket to run on.

Adding SCOTUS and judicial reform to that trifecta is as strong a platform as any I've seen for the Democrats in a long time. They need to pound all of these going into the convention and make all 4 the basis of their 2024 platform.

Makes me feel good anyway

[SupportSanity]

13. K&R

[SupportSanity]

14. Didn't Biden form an exploratory committee to see whether Supreme Court needed changes when he

first came into office? IIRC, their findings were inconclusive.

A couple of years and things really change.

[LilElf70]

16. Something needs to be done

It's quite obvious that what we have today is not working. These republican pricks have taken full advantage of having no one at the reins. Its time to move forward and fix the corruption and make it better for all Americans.

Yes this is big news.

[AZ Dem Love]

17. Yes! This is the kind of action that is needed.

It’s time to fight back and save our democracy!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

88. Welcome to DU

[ancianita]

18. What I have been longing for. Thank you, Joe!

[LisaM]

19. I wonder if he's seeking the impossible to get one thing.

If he could implement the ethics part, that would go a long, long way. It would probably force Clarence Thomas out if he had to hop off the gravy train (so would have nominating Anita Hill - she's totally qualified and I think that would have chased him, too).

[LudwigPastorius]

42. The problem with ethics laws aimed at the SC Justices is...

enforcement.

Congress or the President cannot reduce a Justice's salary, and the only constitutional mechanism for their removal is impeachment.

And, like a term limit law, if there is a dispute about an action taken by the prez or Congress to garnish or remove, it gets decided by the Court.

[MichMan]

64. AOC is going to issue impeachment proceedings

That has just as much chance of being successful

[Zeitghost]

98. Even an ethics code

Will require impeachment or an amendment to enforce.

[republianmushroom]

20. Sure does need to be done now.

[FakeNoose]

24. This is awesome - the adults are taking over!

[patphil]

25. First change I want to see is Thomas and Alito charged with taking bribes.

Replace these two dishonest justices and we've gone a long way toward fixing the SC.
And then we can prosecute Chief Justice Roberts for letting these two bribe takers do their thing without saying a word to object with what they're doing.
We need to restore honor and integrity to the court.
Oversight would go a long way in that direction.

[brakester]

119. Sorry, bribes are now legal

according to the Extreme Court as long as you give the bribe after the official does what you asked.

Something needs to be done. They are dropping a bomb on our constitution

[llmart]

26. This IS great news!

Now let's give him a Congressional majority of Democrats to make it so. Let's not forget he has total immunity from everything since he is currently President and the SCOTUS said so.

[usonian]

28. A rolling stone that's not rolling remains not rolling

until someone gives it a frickin push

... Isaac Newton.

If it weren't for thirsty people we'd have no beer today.



And watch the magats try again.

You know something?



That would be their demise.

[bikes and bunnies]

30. Why do we need an amendment?

The Constitution already says a President can be prosecuted, in the Impeachment Clauses:

"Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_5.html

The right wing Roberts Court just ignored the Constitution, just like they ignored the clear words of the 14th Amendment in the Colorado case, just like a future right wing court would ignore whatever new amendment we came up with. The solution is to expand SCOTUS, and/or have Federal justices rotate from the Supreme Court back to the appeals court, along with other measures that have been proposed, so this Dred Scott- awful immunity decision can be rightfully overturned.

[SlimJimmy]

57. Pipe dream

We've been over this many many times on DU. It would take a Constitutional amendment to make these changes.

[24601]

73. So it says, "...the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and

Punishment, according to Law."

For individuals holding offices subject to impeachment, where does the Constitution authorize Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment for someone who is impeached but not convicted or never even impeached?

From Article II, Section 4 (no subordinate clauses), "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[bikes and bunnies]

91. The LInk Shows You the Exact Quote from the Constitution

I just showed you where the Constitution says the president can be indicted for crimes.
Did you click on the link?

Also, there's nothing in the Constitution that sets the number of SCOTUS justices at 9.
The number has changed over the years, without a Constitutional amendment, so why would people think such an amendment would be needed now?

What's needed is the political will.

If Democrats control the Senate and the White House, they can make those changes without an amendment, which would be much harder to pass. They would need to eliminate or modify the filibuster first, of course. Do they have the will? So far, I haven't seen it. Certainly not from Dick Durbin.

[Igel]

95. I'm pretty sure that was included.

If Congress impeaches and convicts the President, it's pretty clear that what he was convicted for hasn't been deemed an official act falling within authority granted or implied.

[et tu]

32. awesome!

nothing will ever get done if we don't try!

[Dem4life1234]

33. It's up to the people to start voting blue for this to happen.

This country is so annoying.

[Aussie105]

34. The Constitution is accountable for a lot of things that are wrong in America.

You can have a gun, Constitution says so.
Not supposed to shoot your fellow countrymen with one, but that's a bit vague really. Constitution doesn't really cover that too well.

Criminal acts by someone in power? The all purpose magic 'pardon/immunity' wand fixes that!

I'm in favor of a complete rewrite of the Constitution, using modern language and smoothing out some of the archaic bumps in it.
Not as a replacement, but as Version 2.0 for states to consider initially and hopefully adopt, making Version 1.0 redundant.

. . . now, I need to find my binoculars, weather forecast says it is perfect weather for flying pigs!

[Martin68]

35. Does he have the time and the support to enact these changes on the Supreme Court?

[Polybius]

48. No, not even close

It will take 290 votes in the House, 67 in the Senate, and 38 states to ratify.

[SlimJimmy]

58. No to both questions

[PortTack]

36. GO DARK BRANDON!

[ZonkerHarris]

39. Expand the court

[colsohlibgal]

40. Do It Joe

Republicans already stole a couple of seats with some duplicity we owe them payback.

[LudwigPastorius]

41. Yeah, you know who would rule on the constitutionality of a term limits law?

I mean, I'm glad he's trying to get more people to realize that the SCROTUS are a bunch of corrupt assholes, but there's not much proposed that has a chance of happening.

He could drop the big one and try to expand the court, but there's really not enough time left before the election to do that.

[Think. Again.]

47. Don't forget that he no longer has to restrict himself to legal acts.

[Polybius]

49. He cant be prosecuted for official acts

His bills can still be struck down.

[Think. Again.]

59. Yes, trying to pass bills would be one of the legal ways he could proceed...

...but he no longer has to restrict himself to only legal ways to get things done.

[Polybius]

74. He does

There is still no way for him or any President to pass something on his own that requires Congressional approval or a Constitutional Amendment.

[Think. Again.]

79. he does not...

...The freedom to act without legal restraints opens up a whole new world of things he could do to get things done. Some of those things could be very ugly, but the SC says that's A-Okay.

For instance, he could simply have justices "disappeared", which would effectively create a term limit of it's own.

That ruling must not stand.

[MichMan]

80. Do you believe that is what Pres. Biden will do?

Have the conservative justices "removed", and replace them with new ones, who will overturn the "immunity for official acts" ruling ?

Wouldn't that then make him no longer immune, and therefore eligible for prosecution?

[Think. Again.]

81. I don't believe Biden would do that...

...and you have your timing confused.

[Polybius]

92. You're completely misinterpreting the ruling

It says nothing like that. The sky isn't falling, and there will never be term limits. The term limits Amendment for Presidents was a mistake.

[Think. Again.]

104. I'm not misinterpreting the immunity ruling....

...the reason the SC6 claimed is that a President must be free from fear of prosecution to do things that need to be done.

[Polybius]

109. It won't be nearly as bad as it's being made out to be

We can win with or without the ruling.

[Think. Again.]

111. We can win...

...and when they try to cheat we can use the ruling if we must.

But that ruling must go, it is a literal timebomb.

[Igel]

97. I'd like to think it would go to a lower court,

which would just say, "There's no Constitutional authority granted to the Legislative or the Executive for this, so it's unconstitutional." Then the appellate court would hear the obligatory appeal, and agree. SCOTUS would simply refuse the case and let the appellate court verdict stand.

Some judges would say, "Yeah, but the Constitution grants all kinds of authority by not mentioning them, so since this is necessary, and since it's not in direct contradiction, it must be in agreement with the Constitution."

[SlimJimmy]

44. I've read this thread, so let me

add one thing. The Supreme Court is a separate branch of the government. Congress holds no power over them. It would take a Constitutional amendment to do anything the President is talking about.

[Think. Again.]

46. Yes, that's why the President is specifically talking about a Constitutional amendment.

[SlimJimmy]

56. He said Congress could do some things in

reference to the court like term limits. They don't have that power over an equal branch of government.

[Think. Again.]

60. I think this man, with a lifetime of political experience...

...probably knows what he's talking about.

We'll have to wait and see what he's planning.

[SlimJimmy]

100. I think he's taking bad advice from those that should know better.

[Think. Again.]

105. Because you DO know better, got it.

[SlimJimmy]

106. You don't have a clue about what I do or don't know.

It's never wise to make presumptions about people you don't know. That's why we should never flip off the guy in the car next to us. We just never know, do we?

[Think. Again.]

107. But I do know Biden has a lifetime of political experience.

[SlimJimmy]

110. He's relying on bad advice.

That's all I'll say about it.

[Think. Again.]

112. Of course a highly experienced, completely successful, lifelong politician would do that.

[SlimJimmy]

121. I'm sure he's taking their advice.

Good luck to him.

[scipan]

99. Just because the SC is a separate and equal branch, it doesn't mean the other 2 branches have no power over them.

Examples:
- executive branch nominates and Senate consents to adding a justice,
- impeachment,
- some power over what kinds of cases they have jurisdiction over,
- number of justices.
Examples of SCOTUS having power over Congress:
- can declare legislation unconstitutional

Checks and balances.

[SlimJimmy]

102. The USSC doesn't make the rules for the Senate, for example,

because they have no power to do so. Likewise, the Senate or Congress can't make the rules for the USSC. They can only do what the Constitution allows them to do. For example, the Constitution says judges will serve during periods of good behavior (lifetime appointments). They can be only be removed for bad behavior through impeachment and conviction in the Senate. The only way to change that would be through an amendment to the Constitution. That's not going to happen any time soon.

[Blue Owl]

54. Holy fuck -- YES!!!!

I’ll be sending another donation Joe’s way…..

[SunSeeker]

55. Now THAT will energize the base and get Independent votes.

[returnee]

62. I don't what what reform is possible...

…but if it gets him elected I’m all for him talking about it and proposing changes.

[Herkimer]

63. Too Little Too Late

The SCOTUS already had an ethics code, as well as laws against such things as bribery. It did not work because the corrupt were placed on the court at least in part because they WERE corrupt, by a political party that has become so corrupt and anti democratic that they are as good as enemies of the state.

If Joe Biden has absolute immunity for official acts then he can direct the Attorney General to arrest the six justices on the high court for among other things felony perjury.

When you take an oath of office to the US to defend the constitution few people remember that you also have to sign an affidavit swearing under penalty of perjury that you took the oath and intend to abide by it. Not only did at least three of them lie to Congress in their confirmation hearings, they all have now attacked fundamental concepts in the constitution of checks and balances, and of separation of powers. They also have attacked the very foundation of presidential accountability and of the rule of law.

And two of them can be charged with accepting bribes, at least. All three of the justices appointed by Trump were to have recused themselves because they have a direct conflict of interest in the immunity case, he appointed them. Yet they decided a plea he made with direct bearing on his personal legal well being.

So, Biden would be well within his power to simply send squads of federal agents to the SCOTUS and cuff them all and take them in for felonies. And in fact I would also say it is his duty. But, we are going to lose the Senate in November, so the clock is ticking. We need to appoint six new justices to the court before we lose our majority there. You know for a fact that if these are arrested now, Trump will simply pardon them and put them right back on the court. Actually he would not have to pardon them and that would be awkward since accepting a pardon is considered the same as admitting your guilt. Awkward because we would then have a SCOTUS majority that all were arrested on felonies but pardoned for political reasons. Instead Trump would just order his new Attorney General (John Eastman?) to drop all charges.

I get attacked all the time by other Democrats for simply making up wild stuff and get insults like WTF you smoking and yet, how can you look at the last 4-8 years of what the far Nazi right has been doing, or look at their plans for the future and say everything is normal? We have a blatantly corrupt judge that has acted as an accomplice in Trump's serious espionage trial who prevented the trial from even happening since August of 2022, and now has dismissed it entirely on such specious grounds even the corrupt six at SCOTUS will find it difficult to go along with her. Remember Trump conveniently moved his residency to Florida in late 2019. A year later he lost reelection and later that month as a lame duck appointed a pet judge to that district court near Mar a Lardo which he and Mitch McConnell rushed through.

Democrats are treating ALL of this as simply coincidence and not as the crime it was and is. He knew he had broken the law, was planning to take military secrets by the truckload, and he knew he was going to need a pet judge in that district. Everything has gone according to plan. All she had to do was prevent his prosecution, she did. And it was imperative that she do because he is as guilty as f'ing sin in an open and shut case that would have got him at least ten years. He was convicted of 34 felonies, that is now in the process of simply being erased by the corrupt SCOTUS.

This is not normal and no matter how wild your imagination you cannot come up with scenarios more insane and and blatantly fascist than what their plans for us are!

[FBaggins]

108. You get "attacked" for "making up wild stuff and get insults like WTF you smoking"??

Maybe it's because you say things like the president has a duty to arrest six supreme court justices and replace them?

Or maybe "All three of the justices appointed by Trump were to have recused themselves because they have a direct conflict of interest in the immunity case" - which isn't even close to true.

[Baron2024]

115. Right On

I entirely agree with your post. This is not a normal time in the history of our democracy. Trump MAGA Fascism is unprecedented.

[ClearSky24]

65. Good news.

Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2024, 04:05 PM - Edit history (3)

[truthisfreedom]

72. Not necessary, Joe, just change the number of justices.

Overwhelm them with progressives.

From supreme court.gov:

“ Who decides how many Justices are on the Court? Have there always been nine?

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.“

[brooklynite]

75. You realize Biden can't do that either?

The number of Justices is a matter of legislation, which needs to be passed by the House and Senate.

And of course, the next Republican President can do the same thing.

[Trust_Reality]

76. FINALLY !!

I hope it is not too little too late.

[yobrault1]

77. This could be what gets him re-elected

because people want this so badly after seeing the rampant corruption on the supreme court. Reversing citizens united would also be a great move but not sure how that could be done.

[twodogsbarking]

78. To those who say Joe can't do it, hold Joe's beer.

[2roos]

83. Policy Change?

Do people even follow policy change at this point in the campaign? Is that going to move any voters? Seems like they just need to be hammering trump.

[Deep State Witch]

84. Awesome!

We haven't had an Amendment since the 70's. I would rather it be the ERA, but let's do this!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

85. SCOTUS is on the ballot in 2024

[TommieMommy]

87. I hope he can get this done 👍

[calimary]

116. If he gets a second term the probability is better.

There’s yet ANOTHER reason to keep Joe Biden in the White House for another four years.

[Initech]

89. Good! Our current system isn't working - our court is corrupt as hell.

And we know who corrupted it - Fox News and the Heritage Foundation.

[Moostache]

90. About goddamn time!!! Give 'em Hell Joe!!!

SCOTUS appointments - 12 years, renewable ONCE by reconfirmation - after nearly a quarter century, get out of the way...

# of Justices? 15 named (one from every circuit court); 9 seated per session/term on rotation with every justice being on a sabbatical no less than every 4th session/year

Ethics code violations? Removal from the bench and judicial disbarment

As for "immunity"? Fuck that in ALL cases - the LAW is the final arbiter or we have monarchy or anarchy.
This is a nation of LAWS not PEOPLE, and the constitution must reflect that as a page one assumption that is never to be challenged again...if a President believes his actions are illegal or likely to generate trials, RETHINK them!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

93. I'm guessing Biden know the odds for a constitutional amendment's success.

Slim to none.

He would have better luck increasing the number of justices to thirteen, but he doesn't want to do that.

If Trump is elected, with a Repug majority in both houses, I suspect he'll increase the number of justices to thirteen, then add Justice Cannon and three more lackeys in quick order.

[brakester]

120. Drumph already promised

to increase the Court if he got re-elected.

We need bold action, Joe.

[Silent Type]

101. Support this, but see no reason to believe in could be enacted.

[Baron2024]

113. This Is A Great Idea

Joe should also propose a Constitutional Amendment that makes it illegal for a convicted felon to hold Federal elective office, including the Presidency. These proposals show to me that Joe Biden's political instincts are still strong. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices and limited immunity for Presidents are excellent ideas.

[chia]

114. And at some point down the road the history books will point back to this time and say "this is where it began..."

Think less about how long it will take, and more about why it should be done. Let's get the ball rolling for future generations.

[Skittles]

117. make it so THEY CANNOT ACCEPT ANY GIFTS

and THAT INCLUDES BEYONCE TICKETS

[A Physicist]

118. I will bold proposal my

way out of these bad poll numbers - JB

[CRK7376]

122. This is great news

We just need the House and Senate with Pres Biden leading the way.