President Joe Biden on Monday announced his plans to reform the Supreme Court.
Democrats have been on a battlefield for years, demanding reform of the Supreme Court after former President Donald Trump had the opportunity to appoint three justices to the court. Now, as a lame-duck president, Biden is trying to appease progressives as he heads into retirement.
Biden wrote in The Washington Post Three suggestions were made.
1. The “No One is Above the Law” Amendment
In an essay almost certainly written by a White House staffer, Biden proposed a new constitutional amendment called the “No Person is Above the Law” amendment.
To be clear, the President’s power is severely limited, and the President himself does not have the authority to determine the limits of that power.
“it is, no “Former presidents should be granted immunity for crimes they committed while in office,” Biden wrote. “I share our Founding Fathers’ belief that presidential power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws, not kings or dictators.”
The rationale for the amendment is far removed from reality.
Biden ironically argued that the Supreme Court ruling outlining the presidential community “means that there are effectively no limitations on what the president can do,” and further argued that the “only limitations” on presidential power “will be self-imposed by the person sitting in the Oval Office.”
But that’s not true. The Supreme Court’s ruling says otherwise.
“The president is not above the law” I have written Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Trump vs. the United States.
Contrary to Biden’s theories, the limits of presidential power are clear: The president is immune from criminal prosecution. only A person cannot be indicted while performing the “official” duties of the presidency, which is why former President Barack Obama was not indicted. Drone attacks on Americans.
On the other hand, the President does not enjoy immunity for “unofficial acts” that fall outside the scope of his constitutional duties as chief executive officer.
To be clear, the President’s power is severely limited, and the President himself does not have the authority to determine the limits of that power.
2. Term limits for judges
Second, Biden has proposed limiting Supreme Court justices to 18 years in office, with new justices appointed every two years.
“Not only would they be unconstitutional, but they would have the exact opposite effect of what their proponents want.”
“Term limits help ensure that the Supreme Court’s membership is regularly replaced,” Biden argued, adding that “term limits reduce the likelihood that a presidential term will fundamentally change the composition of the Supreme Court for generations to come.”
Progressive Research Institute Proposed This particular reform For many years.
Biden tried to sell the idea by saying, “We are the only major constitutional democracy that offers lifetime seats on the Supreme Court.”
But the reasons for the lack of term limits on the Supreme Court are by no means trivial.
Not only are term limits currently unconstitutional, but imposing term limits and guaranteeing the President the ability to appoint two justices every four years would almost certainly make the Supreme Court more politicized, not less.
Legal scholar Anthony Markham Explained by USA Today:
Though well-intentioned, term limits are problematic. Not only are they unconstitutional, but they would achieve exactly the opposite of what their supporters hope for. Moreover, term limits would tightly tie judicial vacancies to presidential elections, potentially creating sudden ideological shifts on the Supreme Court and only increasing political scrutiny. In other words, rather than easing tensions over nominations, term limits would turn the country into a scorched earth.
…
But term limits would regularize the process, reserving two Supreme Court seats for each presidential term. A two-term president could select 44% of the Supreme Court’s justices. Two, three, or four consecutive terms by presidents of the same party could quickly result in a supermajority of Supreme Court justices becoming ideologically biased. We could go from eight Justices Scalia to eight Justices Ginsburg in just a few years. The possibility of such a dramatic ideological shift on the Supreme Court would bring even more attention to the Court during presidential elections and confirmations.
3. Supreme Court Code of Ethics
Finally, Biden wants a “binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court.”
However, the Supreme Court We already impose our own ethical standards on ourselves.But Democrats aren’t happy with this because, as Biden wrote, it’s “spontaneous” and “weak,” though he didn’t give an example of how it’s “weak.”
“Judges 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,” Biden added. “All other federal judges are bound by enforceable codes of conduct, and there is no reason why the Supreme Court should be exempt.”
This is the least controversial of the three proposals, but its underlying meaning is not true.
Just because the Supreme Court imposes its own code of ethics does not mean it is not accountable.
The truth is, while progressives have accused Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito of ethical improprieties for years; Actual Evidence to support their claims.
One big question
Biden’s first two proposals probably won’t become law, but he’s choosing this moment Calling for reform of the Supreme Court raises big questions.
If the Supreme Court had ruled the way they wanted on abortion, presidential immunity, executive power, student loan forgiveness, the Second Amendment, and a host of other issues, would Biden and the Democrats demand change?
The answer to that question will shed light on the motivation behind their demands.
Do you like Blaze News? Bypass censorship and subscribe to our newsletter to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox. Sign up here!
