Short, stating, entirely:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
###
Details of actual legislation in tune with the proposal from President Biden and Vice President Harris await action in the Houses of Congress. One point of interest, with a new Justice appointed every two years, is that 18 years tenure would be a term limit. Legislation could at the outset open seats held 18 years or more at the start of the process, or remove the longest tenured Justice to start; but if all 18+ terms end upon passage, the first reform installment might lead to multiple replacements.
Likelihood of the proposed reforms passing during the remaining Biden term in office is low, and November's election may weigh upon passage thereafter.
The idea is great, with junketing Clarence being longest tenured, well past 18 years, so an immediate improvement would attain, once the new process starts with an appointment immediately after passage. If Trump wins, there will remain a problem of competence, appointer and appointee, but Harris has a good chance to be in the White House starting next January.
SeattleTimes carries an AP report, noting:
Democrats hope it’ll help focus voters as they consider their choices in a tight election. The likely Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, who has sought to frame her race against Republican ex-President Donald Trump as “a choice between freedom and chaos,” said the court’s fairness had been called into question following recent decisions.
The White House is looking to tap into the growing outrage among Democrats about the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, issuing opinions that overturned landmark decisions on abortion rights and federal regulatory powers that stood for decades.
Liberals also have expressed dismay over revelations about what they say are questionable relationships and decisions by some members of the conservative wing of the court that suggest their impartiality is compromised.
“I have great respect for our institutions and separation of powers,” Biden argues in a Washington Post op-ed published Monday. “What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.”
Harris later issued a statement saying the American people must have confidence in a Supreme Court blighted by ethics scandals and decisions overturning long-standing precedent. She said the reforms being proposed “will help to restore confidence in the Court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law.”
The president planned to speak about his proposal later Monday during an address at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, to mark the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.
Biden [...] argues term limits would help ensure that court membership changes with some regularity and adds a measure of predictability to the nomination process.
He also wants Congress to pass legislation establishing a court code of ethics that would 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.
[...] Polls indicate Americans support limiting how long justices serve on the nation’s highest court. Last summer, a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 67% of Americans, including 82% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans, support a proposal to set a specific number of years that justices serve instead of life terms.
The first three justices who would potentially be affected by term limits are on the right. Justice Clarence Thomas has been on the court for nearly 33 years. Chief Justice John Roberts has served for 19 years, and Justice Samuel Alito has served for 18.
Supreme Court justices served an average of about 17 years from the founding until 1970, said Gabe Roth, executive director of the group Fix the Court. Since 1970, the average has been about 28 years. Both conservative and liberal politicians alike have espoused term limits.
“If justices have this much power, then they should be individuals who reflect America as it currently is, not the America of 30 or 40 years ago, the dead hand of the president who appointed them still influencing policy,” Roth said.
An enforcement mechanism for the high court’s code of ethics, meanwhile, could bring the Supreme Court justices more in line with other federal judges, [...] Last week, Justice Elena Kagan called publicly for creating a way to enforce the new ethics code, becoming the first justice to do so.
Still, when it comes to the Supreme Court, creating an ethics code enforcement mechanism isn’t as easy as it sounds.
The attorney general has always had the power to enforce violations of the financial and gift disclosure rules but has never apparently used that power against federal judges, said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at NYU School of Law.
The body that oversees lower court judges, meanwhile, is headed up by Roberts, “who might be reluctant to use whatever power the conference has against his colleagues,” Gillers wrote in an email.
Presently, Justices can be impeached. Gaining a Senate trial supermajority, as the Constitution requires for impeachment removals, however, has been a roadblock.
BOTTOM LINE: The current Court is a mess; one only a Leonard Leo could love. Love aside, respect for Trump's and other Republican appointed sophists and dissemblers on the Court is generally absent for good reason. Reform is overdue. The Court is an exceptionally bad joke. The people know it. Hence, something has to give. There is only so much we can stand, without reforming the stench.