Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By: Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer (The Washington Post)
Desperation? Maybe. Retribution? Could be. But there's no denying this is nothing more than a naked attempt to politicize the Supreme Court to favor Democrat politics.
Joe Biden, the President who would be King. Donald Trump ain't the greatest threat to American democracy. The Constitution, itself, isn't safe from Democrats' autocratic politics. We know that to be true because that is what Democrats tell us.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court. … I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help,” Biden said, according to a transcript of the call obtained by The Washington Post.
Term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.
The details of Biden’s considered policies have not been disclosed. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.
Shortly after The Post published this story, former president Donald Trump criticized the move on Truth Social: “The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court,” he wrote. “We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country.”
Biden’s private remarks about his high-court plans came more than two weeks after his wobbly performance at a June 27 debate with Trump, which prompted calls from some Democrats for him to step aside as the party’s presidential nominee. Among those who have rallied to his side are many liberals who strongly support calls to remake the court.
Four days after that debate, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts during his first term in office. Less than an hour later, Biden called Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, to discuss the ruling and the arguments for and against remaking the court.
“This decision today has continued the court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman’s right to choose, to today’s decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation,” Biden said in public remarks later that day.
The next week, Biden called Tribe again, and the two discussed a Guardian opinion piece he wrote endorsing reforms to the Supreme Court. Among the options they discussed: term limits, an enforceable ethics code and the constitutional amendment to address presidential immunity.
Tribe confirmed that he spoke with Biden but declined to comment on their discussion.
During the 2020 presidential race, Biden rebuffed calls from liberals who advocated expanding the court, but he promised he would create a commission to study potential changes. He followed through on that promise after being elected, and the commission issued a 294-page report to the president. Biden has not acted on the commission’s report since it was approved in December 2021.
Approval ratings of the Supreme Court have dropped precipitously in recent years, and Biden finds himself trying to resuscitate a flagging presidential campaign after the politically disastrous debate.
Since he was elected, the Supreme Court has veered sharply to the right — overturning Roe v. Wade, ending affirmative action in college admissions, weakening federal agencies’ power by overturning a 40-year decision and striking down Biden’s student-loan forgiveness program. Biden condemned the court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity, arguing on July 1 that it should motivate Americans to vote for his reelection.
“Each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Biden said in a White House address. “With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.”
Eight Democratic senators have co-sponsored a bill that would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice appointed every two years. The nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases, while others would be able to hear original jurisdiction cases or to step in as a substitute if one of the most recent nine is conflicted or cannot hear a case for another reason.
The legislation was introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), but it has been co-sponsored by several Democrats: Cory Booker (N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.).
Democrats have offered other legislation to deal with ethics concerns about the high court, including a bill by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) that caps gifts judges can receive, requires the court to follow the judicial code of conduct and requires justices to provide written recusal decisions upon request from litigants, among other changes.
Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
189 visitors
Republicans were forced to play by the rules Democrats put in place. And Republicans won that political battle. Now Joe Biden, in desperation, must change the rules again to favor Democrat politics. Make no mistake, these proposed changes to the Supreme Court are intended to benefit Joe Biden; the good of the country be damned.
But Republicans can play by those new Democrat rules and win the political battle again. The Democratic Party has always been on the wrong side of history.
Yes. Dems are already using government agencies as a method to create the laws they want rather than through congress, using them to carry out their ideology. Yet, we have people trying to convince us Trump is the greatest threat we've ever faced. Trump may cause problems but they would be nothing compared to what the Dems have been doing for years through career bureaucrats already in place. They've already been running their version of the 2025 plan for years.
It sounds so oddly familiar.
Make no mistake, these proposed changes to the Supreme Court are intended to benefit Joe Biden; the good of the country be damned.
Of course. It is the lite version of what FDR tried to do.
But Republicans can play by those new Democrat rules and win the political battle again.
First Republicans must master the rule changes that democrats have made to elections.
Why would term limits and an ethics code for the Supreme Court "favor" the Democrats ?
Right wing judges aren't inherently unethical , are they ?
According to the Constitution a Supreme Court Judge is a lifetime appointment. Do you know why? It is to shelter the court from political pressure. We really don't want Justices on the highest Court campaigning for the office every few years. Democrats had a good 50 years of activist courts, and they were more than fine with it. Now suddenly when we have rulings, they don't like they want to change the rules. Let them go through the proper procedure of a Constitutional Amendment.
Right wing judges aren't inherently unethical , are they ?
Who sets the ethics rules for the congress? Is it the SCOTUS or the House/Senate itself?
So, it should be for the Judicial branch to set their own ethics rules.
That's all this is. They don't win every single case now, so they have to attack the Court until they do.
Term limits would favor Dems because they like changing things. The easier it is to change, the better they like it. What they hate about the Constitution is that it is very hard to change. It was designed to be that way. Dems hate that because they prefer making rules that suit their need of the moment, so they try to get around it by saying the constitution is a living document, meaning it means whatever they need it to mean for any given occasion.
That means that, unless their people happen to be filling the SCOTUS at the moment, they tend to be very unhappy with a conservative Court. So, being Dems, they'll do whatever they need to do to get the outcome they want. So, that means either enlarging the Court enough to shift control to activist judges during a presidency controlled by a progressive or trying to introduce term limits to get rid of the justices they don't like. A lot would depend on timing but they probably see that as better risk than just trying to live with a conservative Court.
Unfortunately for Dems, Biden announcing support for term limits is just theater. Since that would require changing the constitution, there's probably no chance of it actually happening. Most likely, this is simply supposed to show Dem supporters that Biden and the Dems are somehow fighting for the average American or something.
As for a code of ethics, I can't decide if that's the saddest or funniest thing I've ever heard. Congress? Coming up with a code of ethics? The idea should keep comedians well fed for years!
No, but the preponderance of everyday evidence has shown us that a sizeable number of left-wing judges are.
So the foxes should set the ethics rules for the henhouses
This seems more like a constitutional amendment is needed to me
Not to a dictator…..Do I have the wrong guy who wants to be a dictator?
It's not even a discussion. Removing lifetime tenure from justices is as blatantly unconstitutional as Congress passing a law declaring the President can only serve a one year term.
And here come the right wingers who oppose ethics....
How shocking.
Defending the Democrats grab for power to try and take control of the Supreme Court.
How shocking.
Man, ya gotta love Democrats lecturing the public about ethics when they absolutely abhor moral codes, cannot tolerate any hint of government association with religious morality, and froth at the mouth when the Ten Commandments are placed anywhere on public property. Bless their hearts.
When did the democrats introduce a resolution to expel Menedez for being a foreign agent again? those pieces of crap have no moral high ground here.
What happened to Biden's politi sized DOJ here, as this doesn't seem to fit,
or,
Republicans, specifically Trump, again prove to be full of shit...
So where is the resolution to remove a convicted foreign agent? you keep deflecting to trump, Why the fuck is he still a senator unless democrats have no ethics or integrity?
The republicans suck but George Santos is gone, the democrats are still sucking Menedez off. explain that!!!
some of them are gay...?
Irregardless of what you think i have power over, I do not control the Dems, nor do i agree he shouldn't be OUT OF HERE,
but how is it, that you still have Trump ?
How can you cry about Menendez, yet remain silent about the one who has already been convicted, and would be of much more, if it weren't for an activist Court no longer Supreme ?
That's an ignorant statement, of course some are gay but there are actually females in the Senate to so why did you go directly to gay?
And i don't support trump, i have made it clear, in fact there are only few pwople here who i see actively promoting trump but far larger number supporting a senile old fool who liked to shower with his own teenage daughter.
And then you immediately follow with,
So is that hypocrisy or do you think somehow the republicans answer to me?
it made me happy, and for all you have to say, you tend to defend Trump far more than you seem to say, here.
It is called a whataboutism squared,for you new should understand my point . I have never defended Menendez,
[✘]
No but you support a senile old fool who showered with his teenage daughter. put a bullseye on his opponent.
because she may have felt guilt, does not mean it was done in a mannerism that could have been completely innocent, but, not for you, i've wittnessed you dwell on this while giving Don the pass, and that is bullshit, get over your Biden obsession. Don was found guilty of rape, and then of disparaging his victim, all after stating he can grab em by the pussy, and was buddys with Epstein and was often cruising on the loilita express, but, has the dubios distinction of being the only one i'm aware of as the Co-Defendant along with Epstein of being accused of raping an underage girl, but keep going on about a sentence from a young womans stolen journal that says a shower may have been inappropriate, cause the comparison is ridiculous just as is the multi meanings that can be associated with the word meaning objective or goal, cause if one were to attempt to put me in a bullseye, i would be Bovine Visine
Really? Wasn't that sexual assault?
Really. The actual Judge in the case used the rape term, and yea i know, it wasn't always used before, but your argument is with he, not with me.
.
google did the judge say Trump raped Carrol, that is my response final, take it up with the judge, not me
The judge can say what ever he wants. Unless proven during the trial it's a false statement.
Some folks just gotta have the last word Iggy, even when proven wrong time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again
I'm gonna go with hypocrisy for 1000 Alex.
Have people reviewed what Clarence Thomas has done for a quarter century ? Cause I know if my opinion was to determine something, and it relatively had no effect on me, i might be tempted to take a look see. This injustice has taken millions of dollars in what can only be described as BRIBES from persons with much at stake in front of the former Court Supreme, and this is not considered an extreme, violation that should in the least caused him to rescind and abstain, not all in and then complain, as his Ginny tried to up the ante, by supporting the election steal, how the hell can Clarence rule without his personal thoughts affecting how he does feel...? And just like Alito's shuffling of his deal, as attempting to run up the flagpole how his wife rules the roost, as he determines how the rest of women in the US, have not a say for they to address, what is under, as major a blunder, and the stretching of immunuity leaving impunity is easy ta see, yet , overlooked is it by the GOP.
Term limits and a code of ethics are obviously needed, and when Repubklicans refuse to concede it, it is made glowingly obvious their objectives, and the course of their electives, for thinking individuals who's minds have not yet been collective, could be effective, if implemented much needed codes of ethics and basic rules observed by all others in our judicial system, why would it bre wrong for the highest in the land to not stand up to the same as every other, could it be they think themselves, like a president above the law, all i can say is awe, does it upset you to have to play by the rules...as you play America as the fools, well fck them being upset, the rules are needed as we've seen the result of no oversight unseen, and it is not, what was in the forefathers dream
How does Clarence Thomas' ethics compare to those of Hunter Biden? Nancy Pelosi traded stocks according to the schedule of House business. Bob Menendez made a fortune from a side hustle.
Don't claim some sort of ethical purity when there's so many skeletons in the Democrat closet. How clean were Ruth Bader Ginsburg's robes?
Pretty poorly probably. But in any case, Hunter Biden is not a Supreme Court justice.
Joe Biden wants to turn Clarence Thomas into a political figure.
Won't Biden's proposed changes turn the Supreme Court bench into just another cabinet position that a President fills according to their political agenda? Biden is proposing that the President nominate a new justice every two years.
Think about a President like Trump being able to appoint four justices during two terms. You think that President wouldn't use that to their advantage? Roe v. Wade would be batted back and forth like a ping pong ball.
How is it you guys whine about Thomas when Harlan Crow has never had a case before the supreme court and yet are strangely silent about Sotomayer who literally heard a case about a publisher who paid her millions, is it hypocrisy? or?
Crazy how progressives didn't care about her blatant conflicts, receiving gifts and travel or her the multitude of conflicts that arose out of her husbands legal career and ties to actual court cases.
Ginni, I mean Clarence, is a corrupt piece of shit who didn't recuse himself. So are Alito and his wife, lol. Anyone who didn't recuse themselves regarding 1/6 who were involved like Ginni, are corrupt.
From what? Which case was it?
Balderdash
I don't understand why you keep confusing a man and his wife.
So, because you say so, a member of SCOTUS is supposed to recuse himself from a case he has nothing to do with.
Illogical!
What the fuck does Hunter Biden have to do with ANYTHING?
I have quite the following below. Quite the fan club. They're all on ignore. LOL!
above
That is a terrible precedent to establish. When KBJ recused herself from a case I thought at the time that was stupid, SC justices don't recuse themselves from any case, their job doesn't require recusal. I now realize that KBJ did that to set a precedent and now all the conservative justices are being hammered by that.
Are you confusing people who ask for some tiny shred of proof for bizarre theories with fans?
deflection/distraction/projection
I think you have the order wrong, I have been told it is P, D, and D.
Hunter Biden is a supreme Court Justice now?
The projection and agnorance from post 3.2 is unreal.
Check it out iggy and let me know your thoughts
The left has no right to try and take the moral high ground
Awesome as usual Iggy
As blatant an attack on the Constitution as one can find. He's just pandering to the extremists in his party to remain on the ballot.
Great argument for Trump. He's needed to protect America from Biden, the destroyer of norms.
One of the strangest comments I have ever seen in print.
Not even close.
Nope
Trump a "protector of norms ?
A telling response. Spun to attack Trump when the comment was about needing to protect from Biden’s attack on norms.
Classic
Biden is currently waging war on the Constitution. This isn't just illegally ordering the government to assume billions in debt without congressional approval, or refusing to enforce immigration laws, this is literally a direct attack on the judiciary and the text of the Constitution.
It's indefensible unless you don't care about the Constitution, an independent judiciary or the separation of powers. So unsurprisingly, many democrats love it.
Most progressives don't care about norms except as a means to attack Trump. Then they pretend to care about norms, or democracy, or the President acting as a dictator when they are talking points to attack Trump with. Obtaining power and wielding it is their only concern. They'd be perfectly happy in a progressive dictatorship.
Truth hurts
As usual, the now-infamous and GROSSLY overused "But Trump" drone 'defense' of Biden.
It gets more surreal and bizzaro world here by the minute.
Do you think Trump cares about the Constitution?
Why Trump’s ‘termination’ of Constitution, demanding …
Dec 6, 2022 · After a tumultuous two years of 'stop the steal,' former President Trump has called for a termination of the U.S. Constitution in his latest bad PR blunder.
Something has gone wrong…
It seems you clicked on a bad link and stumbled upon our 404 page
Here come the left wingers who regularly bloviate their unending support for the US Constitution but happily shit all over it when it suits them.
Sad!
So, in true Democrat fashion, they want massive changes because things like the constitution, law and the courts get in their way.
What decisions has he changed based on these so called buy offs?
"Well, I don't know, but somebody told me that he could have!"
None
None. Just another unproven talking point
Perhaps you should take a look back about the time some swell fellow, who was somehow involved with health insurance CEO's, decided, Clarence was such a swell fellow, that he deserved a couple hundred grand for an RV, a loan that was eventually forgiven, for some odd reason.
WHat decision did he actually change from what he would have done anyway?
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
Just one more reason Joe, and people that share his attack on democracy views need to go
Sounds like an act of desperation for the Biden campaign.
Maybe it finally dawned on them they are in trouble.
I bet some of the more rabid members of the Democratic Party are thinking "too little, too late".
Absolutely designed to keep him on the ballot. He's punting on the general for now.
Everything is an act of desperation with Joe and his minions at this point. But it seems they may be happy going down with the USS Biden
He can support reforms til he drops dead, which could be (checks watch) any time now. It doesn’t matter. This Congress will never do anything to fix the Court. Never. Not one fucking thing.
Sorry but I disagree with your statement above. Your statement implies that the court is currently broken, but it's still functioning exactly as it was set up to work. And based on some of the rulings, it's not as one-sided as some people like to make it appear.
What Biden is attempting to do is appear to the far-left voters and supporters that he is trying to do something they would like done in order for them to support them with their votes in both the DNC Conference and the general election. Just another act in a Kabuki play.
Not really. For example, the Constitution says nothing about the Court being the final arbiter of what is Constitutional. The original number of justices was 6 - an even number demanding more consensus.
Besides that, leaning on how it was setup ignores the most basic of facets as to how the government was set up. In short, it’s changeable. As conditions and priorities evolve, we can change how things work.
The President never had term limits until the 22nd Amendment was ratified in the middle of the 20th century. People did not directly vote for their Senators until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Women and non-whites couldn’t vote, etc.
Shit gets changed. That’s how the country was set up.
That’s what politicians are supposed to do: Promise shit people want.
Yes it is changeable. But for Biden to promise term limits on justices is really an empty promise. All Federal judges including Supreme Court Justices service lifetime appointments in accordance with Article III of the US Constitution. To impose term limits on them would require a Constitutional Amendment. Congress and the President alone cannot make that change, yet that is what he is trying to imply.
That's what politicians do when they are campaigning. This IMO is a stupid promise as he implies that this can be fixed with a bill from Congress and it cannot.
You do realize that Amendments aren't ratified by the President or Congress right?
3/4 of state legislatures, or ratifying conventions in 3/4 of the states, must pass it.
Hell, Biden's plan wouldn't even pass the 2/3 needed in the House and Senate to get it proposed. A national convention would be even worse.
The Constitution can be changed; but it takes a lot of effort and agreement nationally to get it done.
Funny how Democrats want things to constantly change to accommodate their desires.
That’s pretty much what I said.
I wouldn’t say with certainty that he is trying to imply that - but who knows what’s in his dementia-addled mind? On its face, term limits would require an amendment to the Constitution because Article III explicitly allows that justices serve during good behavior and that’s the only limit.
Congress proposes the amendment. Unless there is a constitutional convention, any amendment must be approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. That’s never going to happen. That’s what I said.
I don’t think you need to be a Democrat to want to change something.
When the Court tipped left on abortion, it was the rule of law - get over it. When it tipped right, it melted the ice that slowed the earth's rotation and the sky will fall. What's the fair solution - nine more judges from California, Hawaii and Massachusetts?