Biden’s latest ploy seems to revolve around imposing term limits on Supreme Court Justices – an empty display of proposed reform that stands little chance of coming to fruition. Bearing questionable practicality, these cerebral acrobatics appear to be but a diversion from actual issues at hand. While some alarmists on the liberal spectrum deem this election a critical juncture for the Supreme Court’s direction, in reality, the alarm strikes as nothing more than well-crafted political propaganda.
The inception of this laughable charade traces back to 2021, when Biden convened a bipartisan commission of attorneys and legal scholars to explore possible amendments to the functioning of the court. Seemingly, the lengthy report these diligent individuals compiled remained untouched and forgotten until recently. It is bewildering to wonder why it took so long for Biden to re-route his attention to these ‘priority’ concerns.
One of the joke’s punchlines lies in the proposed 18-year term limit for Supreme Court Justices, allowing for two regular presidential appointments during a single term. This proposal does little more than stoke the flames of potential power abuses. The tenure, which averaged 15 years for Justices until 1970 and 26 years for those appointed since 1970 and have since left the bench, would be forcibly culled under Biden’s dreamt term limits.
Trump’s quadrennial stint saw three Justices appointed under his name, two following the demises of Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Within the same timeframe, Presidents Clinton and Obama, who collectively served 16 years, secured four appointments. Meanwhile, poor Jimmy Carter failed to get a single appointment in his tenure. If anything, it’s clear that the true factor influencing the chances for appointments leans more towards historical happenstance than calculated manipulation.
Certainly, if Biden’s scheme of term limits were to be set into motion, the enactment would necessitate a constitutional amendment. Considering the longstanding and assertively held importance of tradition and history in interpreting the Constitution, such a change appears highly implausible. After all, Supreme Court Justices – based on the principles entrenched in Article III, Section 1 – expect to hold their titles for life barring personal resignation or serious misconduct.
Undeterred by the flurry of opposition, some theorists advocate for an alternative, whereby existing court members would retain their titles while theoretically functioning in lower courts. Such a proposition, no different than Biden’s initial suggestion, simply serves to further complicate the role and reputation of these judicial stalwarts. In essence, it demeans their esteemed position, reducing them to the figurehead function of a Supreme Court Justice in name alone.
A constitutional amendment concerning term limits looks more like a unicorn in the current political landscape – beautiful in theory, but proportionally unlikely. The predictable pushback from the GOP makes the amendment’s materialization a tougher ordeal. Furthermore, the taxing, convoluted legislative process is not something that Biden’s administration appears equipped to handle.
Supplementing his term limit proposal, Biden proposes another constitutional amendment aiming to overturn the recent SCOTUS’ decision endowing the President with wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution. Although Biden perceives this legal conclusion as dreadful, his attempts to amend the Constitution once again present an uphill battle, much like his proposed term limits.
Biden’s third proposal – an overly ambitious drive for ethics reform for Supreme Court Justices – is, in characteristically Biden fashion, both impractical and unnecessary, despite Congress’s authority to pass such legislation. The existing ethical code, contrarily to Biden’s claims, allows for each Justice to have the autonomy to recuse themselves from a case as needed. Implementing an obligatory recusal system interferes with the independence of individual justices and their experienced judgment.
Initiating an ethics code for the Supreme Court faces insurmountable political obstacles, especially as such a debate is at risk of devolving into a partisan issue. Allegations of impropriety levelled at conservative Justices like Thomas and Alito have turned the ethical debate into a political scrimmage. Congressional Republicans are unlikely to express enthusiasm for such a bill, leaving Biden’s ambition in vain.
Biden’s proposed reforms appear more like wishful thinking rather than practical implementations for the nation’s best interests. The primary focus right now should not rest on Trump’s potential reelection and the alleged horrors it might inflict on the court and the rule of law. Rather, it should be on the transparency, credibility and graveness of the efforts to change the basic rules governing an entire branch of the federal government.
Undeniably, a president’s Supreme Court appointment choices have long-standing effects. Should election results have swung in Hillary Clinton’s favor, and instead of Trump’s three appointments, her choices would have essentially shaped the court’s verdicts in recent years. Nonetheless, these are hypothetical scenarios, not indicative of the real progress that needs making.
It is reasonable to speculate that if Trump wins the election and the Senate retains its Republican majority, Justices Thomas and Alito might choose to retire. Potential successors include young, forward-thinking conservatives, ensuring the positions remain under conservative influence for the coming decades. Similarly, should a Democrat win and Democrats dominate the Senate, Justice Sotomayor, nearing a 15-year tenure, might opt for retirement.
Any Supreme Court reform efforts that stand a chance of being adopted anytime soon unlikely influence the court’s composition. As a result, Biden’s pie-in-the-sky projects prove to be more of a distraction than a solution. The presidential election, however, undeniably impacts the court’s landscape, and the upcoming months will serve to enlighten the discernible differences between potential appointments by Trump or Kamala Harris.
Biden’s Fumbled Attempt at Supreme Court Reform: A Laughable Charade appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
