Biden on SCOTUS

[4Q Basket Case]

Surprised a thread on Biden's proposed Constitutional amendment on SCOTUS hasn't gotten a thread.

I agree that SCOTUS needs a code of ethics, and think Congress could make that stick so long as they don't overreach and try to attach a lot of tangential stuff couched as "ethics."

But a Constitutional amendment on term limits, including measures around ethics, is such a pipe dream that it makes me doubt his true intent.

It's highly unlikely that such a proposal would get the required 2/3 of both houses of Congress. But even if it did, there's no way, no how, not ever in a million years, that 3/4 of the state legislatures would concur. 13 states could block it, and I think we could all rattle off more than 13 that would.

He and his staff know that. So I think it's political theater aimed more at influencing the November election than a realistic attempt to amend the Constitution.

If Biden really wants to influence change, why not put forward legislation to impose a code of ethics? I think that'd have a realistic chance of passing.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Ethics and government, LOL, now there's the start of a very good joke.

 

[NationalTitles18]

How would Biden's proposed Supreme Court reforms work?

There’s almost no chance of the proposal passing a closely divided Congress with Election Day looming, but the ideas could still spark conversation.

www.pbs.org

.

Term limits for SCOTUS justices are widely supported, with even a majority of republicans supporting it.

But let's see what has been proposed.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law | The White House

From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law. In

www.whitehouse.gov

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law

1. Home
2. Briefing Room
3. Statements and Releases

From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has overturned long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights. This Court has gutted civil rights protections, taken away a woman’s right to choose, and now granted Presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office.
At the same time, recent ethics scandals involving some Justices have caused the public to question the fairness and independence that are essential for the Court to faithfully carry out its mission to deliver justice for all Americans.
President Biden believes that no one—neither the President nor the Supreme Court—is above the law.
In the face of this crisis of confidence in America’s democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:

1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office: President Biden shares the Founders’ belief that the President’s power is limited—not absolute—and must ultimately reside with the people. He is calling for a constitutional amendment that makes clear no President is above the law or immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This No One Is Above the Law Amendment will state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.

1. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Congress approved term limits for the Presidency over 75 years ago, and President Biden believes they should do the same for the Supreme Court. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court Justices. Term limits would help ensure that the Court’s membership changes with some regularity; make timing for Court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary; and reduce the chance that any single Presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come. President Biden supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court.

1. Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court: President Biden believes that Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices 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. Supreme Court Justices should not be exempt from the enforceable code of conduct that applies to every other federal judge.

President Biden and Vice President Harris look forward to working with Congress and empowering the American people to prevent the abuse of Presidential power, restore faith in the Supreme Court, and strengthen the guardrails of democracy. President Biden thanks the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis of Supreme Court reform proposals. The Administration will continue its work to ensure that no one is above the law – and in America, the people rule.
____________

So do you agree with it and think some reasonable form should become law?

If not, what is your better proposal?

Does a measure being currently unable to pass because one side wants to block it for their own gain mean the effort is not worthwhile?

Is the long game (like overturning Roe) now something to be mocked when it has been shown it can work?

I know that being nihilist is in fashion, but should we really just give up?

 

[Bazza]

I think a good start would be term limits for members of Congress.

Also, I wonder why the subject of age wasn't mentioned?

 

[jthomas666]

A constitutional amendment would certainly be required to eliminate the presidential immunity gifted by the Supreme Court.

A law would be sufficient to establish the ethical code for justices.

Term limits for justices is a little trickier. Some experts say it can only be done via amendment. Some say that you can get around it by basically creating a different judicial office to perform the same function. The new office would be subject to term limits. The problem with this method--assuming that it passes constitutional muster--is that you're still stuck with the current justices and their lifetime tenure--it would likely take 20-30 years to get the new system in place.

 

[Go Bama]

I didn’t find anything unreasonable at all in the proposal. It may be a pipe dream, but it’s worth a shot.

If Trump loses the election in November and loses control of the Republican Party, then the Party gravitates back to a party of limited government, strong military, moral leaders, fiscal responsibility, etc. then more people may be willing to listen to reason. MAGA is going to oppose anything the D’s propose.

 

[Bama_N_Va]

I will NEVER SUPPORT Term Limits for SCOTUS unless the same limits apply to Congress!!!!!

 

[92tide]

I will NEVER SUPPORT Term Limits for SCOTUS unless the same limits apply to Congress!!!!!

we have a vote every 2 and 6 years to limit the terms of those in congress

 

[Bama_N_Va]

we have a vote every 2 and 6 years to limit the terms of those in congress

Those aren't mandatory limits....I want mandatory limits...

 

[Go Bama]

I will NEVER SUPPORT Term Limits for SCOTUS unless the same limits apply to Congress!!!!!

What term limits for Congress are you in favor of? I would probably support it. I’m not sure how this is connected to the SCOTUS. Personally, I think 18 years is too long of a term for Supreme Court justices.

 

[jthomas666]

Those aren't mandatory limits....I want mandatory limits...

I wouldn't mind term limits for the House, but the Senate was intended more for longevity. Age limits, though, probably wouldn't be a bad idea...

 

[jthomas666]

What term limits for Congress are you in favor of? I would probably support it. I’m not sure how this is connected to the SCOTUS. Personally, I think 18 years is too long of a term for Supreme Court justices.

Eh. It works for me. If we had an 18 year limit, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would all be gone.

 

[Crimson1967]

Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Thurgood Marshall doesn’t retire in 1991 and stays until he dies on January 24, 1993. This means Clarence Thomas is not on the Supreme Court and Clinton appoints someone else.

2. RBG hangs on three more months or else retires when Obama is president. Amy Barrett is not on the court.

3. McConnell allows a floor vote on Merrick Garland and he squeaks in with a few GOP votes.

Now we have a 6-3 split the other way. Roe is still law. Would Biden support term limits? Would Trump be called a radical if he supported them?

 

[Go Bama]

Now we have a 6-3 split the other way. Roe is still law. Would Biden support term limits? Would Trump be called a radical if he supported them?

We can only guess what Biden or Trump would do, but I will always support term limits for the Supreme Court justices. It’s what makes sense to me.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Thurgood Marshall doesn’t retire in 1991 and stays until he dies on January 24, 1993. This means Clarence Thomas is not on the Supreme Court and Clinton appoints someone else.

2. RBG hangs on three more months or else retires when Obama is president. Amy Barrett is not on the court.

3. McConnell allows a floor vote on Merrick Garland and he squeaks in with a few GOP votes.

Now we have a 6-3 split the other way. Roe is still law. Would Biden support term limits? Would Trump be called a radical if he supported them?

Exactly - it's hilarious how everything becomes an issue when things don't go the way some want. Gotta change the rules to keep things 'fair''...

 

[Tidewater]

Surprised a thread on Biden's proposed Constitutional amendment on SCOTUS hasn't gotten a thread.

I agree that SCOTUS needs a code of ethics, and think Congress could make that stick so long as they don't overreach and try to attach a lot of tangential stuff couched as "ethics."

But a Constitutional amendment on term limits, including measures around ethics, is such a pipe dream that it makes me doubt his true intent.

It's highly unlikely that such a proposal would get the required 2/3 of both houses of Congress. But even if it did, there's no way, no how, not ever in a million years, that 3/4 of the state legislatures would concur. 13 states could block it, and I think we could all rattle off more than 13 that would.

He and his staff know that. So I think it's political theater aimed more at influencing the November election than a realistic attempt to amend the Constitution.

If Biden really wants to influence change, why not put forward legislation to impose a code of ethics? I think that'd have a realistic chance of passing.

I do not think the reforms suggested are bad. Truth be told Thurgood Marshall did not know what planet he was on by the time he left the bench. A clever lawyer in his day but to hear him speak near the end of his time on the bench, 🙄
You are right though, getting them enacted is a long shot.
Still, it is an election year and this is red meat for Biden's base.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Thurgood Marshall doesn’t retire in 1991 and stays until he dies on January 24, 1993. This means Clarence Thomas is not on the Supreme Court and Clinton appoints someone else.

2. RBG hangs on three more months or else retires when Obama is president. Amy Barrett is not on the court.

3. McConnell allows a floor vote on Merrick Garland and he squeaks in with a few GOP votes.

Now we have a 6-3 split the other way. Roe is still law. Would Biden support term limits? Would Trump be called a radical if he supported them?

It’s only cared about because it’s not in (insert party’s name) favor.

Have Republicans ever clamored for Supreme Court term limits?

Immunity should stay. Trump was impeached twice simply because the controlling party didn’t like him. New York pressed charges on “crimes” just to label him a convicted felon.

too many opportunities to wield the government against people.

 

[Bama_N_Va]

What term limits for Congress are you in favor of? I would probably support it. I’m not sure how this is connected to the SCOTUS. Personally, I think 18 years is too long of a term for Supreme Court justices.

12 years max total time, no career politicians.

Why do you think 18 years is too long?

 

[Bama_N_Va]

I wouldn't mind term limits for the House, but the Senate was intended more for longevity. Age limits, though, probably wouldn't be a bad idea...

The Senate got longevity by having longer terms. The world moved slower 250 years again...

 

[NationalTitles18]

Well, if republicans don't want to enact a compromise plan that has the potential to be good for everyone then democrats should go scorched earth like republicans have and not only manipulate the system but turn it to their advantage by immediately expanding the court to 13 justices.