President Joe Biden has launched an audacious campaign to reshape the United States Supreme Court, unveiling three sweeping proposals under the guise of protecting “democratic institutions” and restoring “trust and accountability.”
These moves come amid rising concerns from conservatives who view this as a blatant attempt to tilt the judiciary in favor of leftist agendas and undermine the foundational principles that have long governed the nation.
What Are the Proposals?
1. The ‘No One Is Above the Law Amendment’
In an op-ed for the Washington Post, President Biden put forward a controversial constitutional amendment aimed at stripping former presidents of immunity for crimes allegedly committed while in office. This proposal seems to be a direct response to the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision affirming broad presidential immunity, a ruling seen by many as essential for maintaining the balance of power and preventing politically motivated prosecutions.
Biden’s amendment is portrayed as a safeguard against tyranny, with Biden asserting, “We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.” However, critics argue that this move is a thinly veiled attempt to target former President Donald Trump and disrupt ongoing legal proceedings.
2. Term Limits for Justices
Biden’s second proposal calls for implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices, drawing a parallel with the term limits for the presidency established nearly 75 years ago. Under this plan, a new justice would be appointed every two years to serve an 18-year term. Biden claims this would regularize changes in the court’s composition and prevent any single presidency from significantly altering its makeup.
While this might seem like a step towards modernizing the judiciary, many conservatives see it as an effort to destabilize the court and inject more political influence into judicial appointments, which traditionally aim to be impartial and independent.
3. Code of Conduct for Justices
The third proposal involves imposing a binding code of conduct on Supreme Court justices. This code would mandate the disclosure of gifts, prohibit public political activity, and require recusal in cases of financial or other conflicts of interest. This suggestion follows recent allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas, who, along with his wife, was reported to have received significant financial benefits from conservative donors.
Biden argues that a binding ethics code is “common sense.” However, detractors point out that existing voluntary ethics guidelines have served the judiciary well, and making them enforceable could politicize the court further and diminish its independence.
Prospects for Passage
Passing these reforms through a divided Congress will be an uphill battle, especially during an election year and with Biden not seeking reelection. The proposals are expected to face staunch opposition from conservative lawmakers who see them as part of a broader effort to undermine the judiciary’s independence and push a liberal agenda.
Despite the challenges, Biden is set to champion these reforms in a speech at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, marking the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. He insists that “all three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars,” although this claim is highly contested.
Biden concludes his op-ed with a call to action, asserting, “We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.” However, many conservatives argue that these measures do not strengthen but rather erode the foundational principles of American democracy.
Conclusion
As President Biden pushes forward with these radical proposals, the country braces for a heated debate over the future of the Supreme Court and its role in American governance. With tensions running high and opinions deeply divided, the outcome of this legislative battle will significantly impact the judiciary’s independence and the broader democratic framework of the United States.
