Biden's SCOTUS Plan

[Copernicus]

Joe Biden has just released his plan to Reform the Supreme Court. It has no chance of being accepted before the November election, but it will likely be a plank in the DNC platform. Here are the three basic reforms that the White House has released to the public:

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.

Thoughts?

 

[laughing dog]

I like a binding code of conduct idea.

A constitutional amendment about Presidential immunity should also spell out the standard and consequences for insurrection.

 

[Copernicus]

I like a binding code of conduct idea.

A constitutional amendment about Presidential immunity should also spell out the standard and consequences for insurrection.

I'm not sure that any of these proposals need to be constitutional amendments, since Congress is already constitutionally empowered to regulate the Supreme Court. 18 U.S. Code §2383 does define insurrection as "a violent uprising against the authority of the state or its laws." This includes acts such as taking up arms or otherwise actively opposing the government's power and lawful authority. However, the January 6 rioters were not indicted or charged with insurrection but with crimes that were easier to prove to a jury. The current SCOTUS would likely consider Trump's rally to encourage violence as an official act of the presidency, since he was in office at the time and empowered to give public speeches as president.

 

[Patooka]

Thoughts?

Just one,

Why the living fuck haven't you lot done this fucking years ago? I mean it's a safe bet the actual people responsible for this pseudo aristocracy aren't frequent readers of this forum but I'm sorry. I needed to get that off my chest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I like a binding code of conduct idea.

A constitutional amendment about Presidential immunity should also spell out the standard and consequences for insurrection.

I'm not sure that any of these proposals need to be constitutional amendments, since Congress is already constitutionally empowered to regulate the Supreme Court. 18 U.S. Code §2383 does define insurrection as "a violent uprising against the authority of the state or its laws." This includes acts such as taking up arms or otherwise actively opposing the government's power and lawful authority. However, the January 6 rioters were not indicted or charged with insurrection but with crimes that were easier to prove to a jury. The current SCOTUS would likely consider Trump's rally to encourage violence as an official act of the presidency, since he was in office at the time and empowered to give public speeches as president.

I think we need a definition of what meets the 14th amendment standard.

I object to Colorado's actions because of this--not having a bar that needs to be met opens the floodgates for garbage.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Why the living fuck haven't you lot done this fucking years ago?

Well, for starters, two generations ago, SCOTUS and the Republicans were part of the brick wall that Nixon ran into. These days, the party embraces, supports, celebrates, and wishes to re-empower the guy who -- well, refer to the articles of the two impeachments and the several indictments. And today's SCOTUS wishes to equip him with a crown, a royal robe, and a throne.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Thoughts?

Just one,

Why the living fuck haven't you lot done this fucking years ago?

Probably for the same reason it's not going to happen now.

 

[jonatha]

I'm not sure that any of these proposals need to be constitutional amendments, since Congress is already constitutionally empowered to regulate the Supreme Court.

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" - Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 1.

 

[Toni]

Thoughts?

Just one,

Why the living fuck haven't you lot done this fucking years ago? I mean it's a safe bet the actual people responsible for this pseudo aristocracy aren't frequent readers of this forum but I'm sorry. I needed to get that off my chest.

To be frank, the need has not been evident since the Civil War.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm not sure that any of these proposals need to be constitutional amendments, since Congress is already constitutionally empowered to regulate the Supreme Court.

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" - Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 1.

That’s certainly a lower standard than impeachment. But, unfortunately, it’s still mostly going to be based on political interpretation.

 

[Copernicus]

Thoughts?

Just one,

Why the living fuck haven't you lot done this fucking years ago? I mean it's a safe bet the actual people responsible for this pseudo aristocracy aren't frequent readers of this forum but I'm sorry. I needed to get that off my chest.

I would say that we haven't experienced such a politically partisan Supreme Court in recent memory, so the need for serious reform was not compelling enough to make large numbers of people concerned about it. The first proposed amendment only became necessary this year, when SCOTUS decided to give Trump broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while he was in office. They didn't think the decision through very carefully, because they were focused on how it affected Trump and their political party rather than future presidencies. I have a feeling that this decision will be overturned by a future SCOTUS even without an amendment. It just isn't supported by US history.

 

[jonatha]

I'm not sure that any of these proposals need to be constitutional amendments, since Congress is already constitutionally empowered to regulate the Supreme Court.

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" - Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 1.

That’s certainly a lower standard than impeachment. But, unfortunately, it’s still mostly going to be based on political interpretation.

It means term limits can't be imposed without an amendment.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not sure that any of these proposals need to be constitutional amendments, since Congress is already constitutionally empowered to regulate the Supreme Court.
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" - Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 1.

That’s certainly a lower standard than impeachment. But, unfortunately, it’s still mostly going to be based on political interpretation.

It means term limits can't be imposed without an amendment.

Actually, there is a more nuanced stance on this--that SCOTUS justices still remain in place for life, but they move to "senior status" after a limited period of time. After that, they create a new position on the court, and they can take on a reduced caseload.

See:

About Federal Judges​

Senior Judges​

Article III judges who have met age and service requirements set by federal statute are eligible to take senior status if they are at least 65 years old and have served at least 15 years on the bench, or any combination of age and years of service thereafter that equals 80. Regardless of age, judges must serve at least 10 years to qualify for senior status.

Upon taking senior status, judges may choose to handle a reduced caseload. Senior judges handle about 20 percent of the total district and appellate caseload. By taking senior status, even if maintaining a full caseload, a judge creates a vacancy on the court, to be filled by the nomination and confirmation process for Article III judges.

Senior judges receive the salary of their position at the time of taking senior status as an annuity.

Because there is no mandatory retirement age for Article III judges, there is no requirement that they take senior status.

No constitutional amendment would be required to implement this for the Supreme Court, but, from what I've been reading, Congress could simply impose term limits on SCOTUS justices without requiring a special amendment.

 

[jonatha]

from what I've been reading, Congress could simply impose term limits on SCOTUS justices without requiring a special amendment.

Cites?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thoughts?

Just one,

Why the living fuck haven't you lot done this fucking years ago? I mean it's a safe bet the actual people responsible for this pseudo aristocracy aren't frequent readers of this forum but I'm sorry. I needed to get that off my chest.

Because about up to the 1990s it generally worked. The right-wing started appointing partisans to the Supreme Court in the 1980s.

I also fail to see what "term limits" gains us. It is like term limits in Government. They haven't changed much at all.

 

[Gospel]

No constitutional amendment would be required to implement this for the Supreme Court, but, from what I've been reading, Congress could simply impose term limits on SCOTUS justices without requiring a special amendment.

Yes, the Constitution grants them the authority to enact laws, provided that those laws do not violate the Constitution itself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No constitutional amendment would be required to implement this for the Supreme Court, but, from what I've been reading, Congress could simply impose term limits on SCOTUS justices without requiring a special amendment.

Yes, the Constitution grants them the authority to enact laws, provided that those laws do not violate the Constitution itself.

Like in Marbury v Madison or Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce? In Relentless, SCOTUS invented a line-item veto for the American Judicial system. Who tells them that they don't get to do that?

 

[Gospel]

That further reinforces my belief that the biggest and most unavoidable flaw in the US Constitution is "We the People."

 

[Copernicus]

from what I've been reading, Congress could simply impose term limits on SCOTUS justices without requiring a special amendment.

Cites?

The possibility is unlikely, but Bernie Sanders has proposed a rotation scheme. It would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court itself, since they don't seem likely to give up their power or sinecures. The more feasible approach would be some kind of senior justice status, where justices are not removed from the court but their powers somewhat diminished.

The Feasibility of ‘Rotating’ Supreme Court Justices

Congress does have the ability to control the number of justices on the Supreme Court, so an expansion to more justices might be feasible. However, that reform is notably missing from Biden's proposed changes. It would be needed for the senior status approach, since a new judge is appointed when one of them moves to senior status.