Biden Proposed Supreme Court Reforms

[crazed_hoosier2]

First, I have no idea what limited presidential immunity has to do with any proposed reforms of the judiciary itself. This is just a response to a single recent opinion -- and is entirely situational. By that I mean that it's all about Trump and the various legal things that came his way as he ramped up another presidential campaign. Ask everybody at some other period of time, in some other situation, and it seems entirely possible you could get precisely the opposite answers -- depending on who is embroiled in what at that time.

Second, I'm quite sure that judicial term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution specifies a number of terms of office. And, of course, the 22nd amendment specifies term limits for presidents -- which didn't exist prior to 1947. Given the absence of terms or term limits for federal judges in the ratified text (it only says good behavior), it seems obvious that Congress lacks the authority to do this by statute.

Again, this is also situational. And, no, it isn't a thing right now because we've determined after 30 years on the bench that Clarence Thomas is a crook. It's a thing right now because Democrats have lost their shit about the opinions being issued by the Roberts court.

Third, a judicial code of ethics may be a little murkier. The lower courts already have one that's imposed by statute -- and administered by the Judicial Conference (which was also created by statute). But the lower courts are entirely a creature of Congress by way of Article I, Section 8. The Supreme Court is its own branch of government. So there are probably separation of powers obstacles here as well -- and it probably explains why the statutory judicial code of ethics has always only been only on the lower courts.

One wonders how Congress would react if the Judicial Branch tried to craft and institute a code of ethics on the Legislative Branch. Congress does this itself -- and for a reason.

Biden, Harris call for Supreme Court term limits

 

[Courtsensetwo]

First, I have no idea what limited presidential immunity has to do with any proposed reforms of the judiciary itself. This is just a response to a single recent opinion -- and is entirely situational. By that I mean that it's all about Trump and the various legal things that came his way as he ramped up another presidential campaign. Ask everybody at some other period of time, in some other situation, and it seems entirely possible you could get precisely the opposite answers -- depending on who is embroiled in what at that time.

Second, I'm quite sure that judicial term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution specifies a number of terms of office. And, of course, the 22nd amendment specifies term limits for presidents -- which didn't exist prior to 1947. Given the absence of terms or term limits for federal judges in the ratified text (it only says good behavior), it seems obvious that Congress lacks the authority to do this by statute.

Again, this is also situational. And, no, it isn't a thing right now because we've determined after 30 years on the bench that Clarence Thomas is a crook. It's a thing right now because Democrats have lost their shit about the opinions being issued by the Roberts court.

Third, a judicial code of ethics may be a little murkier. The lower courts already have one that's imposed by statute -- and administered by the Judicial Conference (which was also created by statute). But the lower courts are entirely a creature of Congress by way of Article I, Section 8. The Supreme Court is its own branch of government. So there are probably separation of powers obstacles here as well -- and it probably explains why the statutory judicial code of ethics has always only been only on the lower courts.

One wonders how Congress would react if the Judicial Branch tried to craft and institute a code of ethics on the Legislative Branch. Congress does this itself -- and for a reason.

Biden, Harris call for Supreme Court term limits

All of this is a response to recent events. Biden/Harris want a liberal leaning SCOTUS.

 

[mrhighlife]

It all seems very common sense. But like you, I'm not sure how any of it actually comes to fruition.

Id like to see Congress vote on term limits for themselves first though. 18 years is good for them too. Maybe all 3 branches should be 18?

 

[mrhighlife]

All of this is a response to recent events. Biden/Harris want a liberal leaning SCOTUS.

Possibly. But how would this accomplish that? Doesn't seem like it would since none of the sitting SCJs would have to up and retire.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Possibly. But how would this accomplish that? Doesn't seem like it would since none of the sitting SCJs would have to up and retire.

First, keep in mind that this is NOT a serious legislative proposal. It can't be. Serious legislative proposals are vetted for constitutionality. This is unconstitutional -- and pretty obviously so. I'm pretty sure the folks in the administration know this.

So if it's not a serious legislative proposal, then what's the point? Well, it is an election year. So there's always that. But I'd guess that it's also about preparing the space (should the opportunity arise) to bring about different outcomes by packing the court. After all, if the court is perceived as illegitimate, then it makes it politically easier to justify reforms they can do.

And I do think that Congress could legally pack the court -- even if the motivation behind it was simply to affect different outcomes in contentious matters.

 

[mcmurtry66]

First, I have no idea what limited presidential immunity has to do with any proposed reforms of the judiciary itself. This is just a response to a single recent opinion -- and is entirely situational. By that I mean that it's all about Trump and the various legal things that came his way as he ramped up another presidential campaign. Ask everybody at some other period of time, in some other situation, and it seems entirely possible you could get precisely the opposite answers -- depending on who is embroiled in what at that time.

Second, I'm quite sure that judicial term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution specifies a number of terms of office. And, of course, the 22nd amendment specifies term limits for presidents -- which didn't exist prior to 1947. Given the absence of terms or term limits for federal judges in the ratified text (it only says good behavior), it seems obvious that Congress lacks the authority to do this by statute.

Again, this is also situational. And, no, it isn't a thing right now because we've determined after 30 years on the bench that Clarence Thomas is a crook. It's a thing right now because Democrats have lost their shit about the opinions being issued by the Roberts court.

Third, a judicial code of ethics may be a little murkier. The lower courts already have one that's imposed by statute -- and administered by the Judicial Conference (which was also created by statute). But the lower courts are entirely a creature of Congress by way of Article I, Section 8. The Supreme Court is its own branch of government. So there are probably separation of powers obstacles here as well -- and it probably explains why the statutory judicial code of ethics has always only been only on the lower courts.

One wonders how Congress would react if the Judicial Branch tried to craft and institute a code of ethics on the Legislative Branch. Congress does this itself -- and for a reason.

Biden, Harris call for Supreme Court term limits

We’re going back in time with Biden and Harris. It’s pretty wild. The endless free cheese wasn’t a response to the pandemic. It was fulfilling aspirations to be transformative by expanding the social safety net and engendering cradle to grave benefits. Harris’ Biden s.Ct packing is bc they don’t want a conservative court and hate trump.

It’s a mirror of fdr. Fdr and the new deal programs with gov expansion social safety net and he too waged war on the s.Ct in an effort to pack same. His efforts were thwarted but here we are again.

Fdr did let us drink tho.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Id like to see Congress vote on term limits for themselves first though. 18 years is good for them too. Maybe all 3 branches should be 18?

Even this is Constitutionally dubious.

In 1995, a couple dozen states were sued for having used state election laws to deny ballot access to candidates who had served a certain number of years in federal office. These laws were invalidated by SCOTUS in US Term Limits, Inc. vs. Thornton. The court said (you guessed it) that state legislatures did not have the power to supersede or circumvent the qualifications for office as set out in Article I and the 17th Amendment.

I can't recall the specific citation, but there was some dicta laid out in that decision which poured cold water on the idea of Congress applying term limits to themselves by statute. There's a reason we needed to amend the Constitution to impose term limits on president. And, in all likelihood, it's the same reason we'd need to do it again if we wanted term limits on Federal Judges or members of Congress.

 

[Harry Hondo]

All of this is a response to recent events. Biden/Harris want a liberal leaning SCOTUS.

Perhaps, but I think America as a whole would benefit with at least a 5-4 SCOTUS, either way. Right now we have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS and every 4 years the liberals win the popular vote. That's not going to work very well.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Even this is Constitutionally dubious.

In 1995, a couple dozen states were sued for having used state election laws to deny ballot access to candidates who had served a certain number of years in federal office. These laws were invalidated by SCOTUS in US Term Limits, Inc. vs. Thornton. The court said (you guessed it) that state legislatures did not have the power to supersede or circumvent the qualifications for office as set out in Article I and the 17th Amendment.

I can't recall the specific citation, but there was some dicta laid out in that decision which poured cold water on the idea of Congress applying term limits to themselves by statute. There's a reason we needed to amend the Constitution to impose term limits on president. And, in all likelihood, it's the same reason we'd need to do it again if we wanted term limits on Federal Judges or members of Congress.

It's worth pointing out, however, that the author of the dissenting opinion in US Term Limits -- which 3 other justices joined -- is the only justice still left on the court from 1995.

Notably, what was being decided is a different question than whether or not Congress could impose term limits on themselves via statutory authority. There is no binding caselaw which states that Congress cannot enact term limits. But given the court's approach to Article I as being the sole authority on this, it's generally assumed to be the case.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Perhaps, but I think America as a whole would benefit with at least a 5-4 SCOTUS, either way. Right now we have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS and every 4 years the liberals win the popular vote. That's not going to work very well.

That bloc of 6 justices isn't nearly as philosophically homogeneous as a casual observer might assume them to be.

Anyway, the most important thing to me is simply that all 9 of them make a good faith effort to interpret and apply the law as written and ratified. I don't care if a judge identifies as liberal, conservative, or otherwise. What we should absolutely not want from our courts is the judicial philosophy best espoused by Justice Thurgood Marshall when he said that "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." This attitude presumes that a judge's opinions are superior to the law -- and that's bass ackwards.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We’re going back in time with Biden and Harris. It’s pretty wild. The endless free cheese wasn’t a response to the pandemic. It was fulfilling aspirations to be transformative by expanding the social safety net and engendering cradle to grave benefits. Harris’ Biden s.Ct packing is bc they don’t want a conservative court and hate trump.

It’s a mirror of fdr. Fdr and the new deal programs with gov expansion social safety net and he too waged war on the s.Ct in an effort to pack same. His efforts were thwarted but here we are again.

Fdr did let us drink tho.

The basic historical narrative (rightly or wrongly) is that the Hughes Court was cowed into submission by FDR's threat to pack the court in order to ensure the court's blessing of New Deal reforms.

The key vote that came to be characterized as "The Switch in time that saved Nine" was Justice Owen Roberts (who was one of two swing votes on the court) surprisingly siding with the Brandeis bloc in blessing a state's minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. So it wasn't even federal legislation at issue in WCH. But the idea was that Roberts flipped on it in order to defuse FDR's push to expand the court.

After this, the New Deal legislation had less trouble in the courts than it had previously.

So FDR's court packing itself was thwarted -- but mostly, in the prevailing historical narrative (not saying it's right), because it achieved the objective FDR had all along.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Perhaps, but I think America as a whole would benefit with at least a 5-4 SCOTUS, either way. Right now we have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS and every 4 years the liberals win the popular vote. That's not going to work very well.

The SCOTUS has leaned left in the past and liberals thought it was as it should be and right wingers screamed. Elizabeth warren wasnts to expand the court so they can get a liberal lean...This is so predictable.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Possibly. But how would this accomplish that? Doesn't seem like it would since none of the sitting SCJs would have to up and retire.

One party doesn't like a ruling...they go after one of the judges they don't like. 100% predictable.

 

[BradStevens]

I’m all for a constitutional amendment of term limits for the judicial and legislative branches and an age limit.

I’m guessing 2/3-3/4 of the public would agree. If I knew how to start the movement, I would.

 

[Ohio Guy]

First, keep in mind that this is NOT a serious legislative proposal. It can't be. Serious legislative proposals are vetted for constitutionality. This is unconstitutional -- and pretty obviously so. I'm pretty sure the folks in the administration know this.

So if it's not a serious legislative proposal, then what's the point? Well, it is an election year. So there's always that. But I'd guess that it's also about preparing the space (should the opportunity arise) to bring about different outcomes by packing the court. After all, if the court is perceived as illegitimate, then it makes it politically easier to justify reforms they can do.

And I do think that Congress could legally pack the court -- even if the motivation behind it was simply to affect different outcomes in contentious matters.

It seems to me that term limits - or at least getting rid of lifetime appointments makes sense. I'm not even sure what the benefit of a lifetime appointment is.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It seems to me that term limits - or at least getting rid of lifetime appointments makes sense. I'm not even sure what the benefit of a lifetime appointment is.

So they are immune to the vagaries of politics and the trends of a time. In other words to prevent what Biden and the far left propose. They rule according to the law without influence

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I’m all for a constitutional amendment of term limits for the judicial and legislative branches and an age limit.

I’m guessing 2/3-3/4 of the public would agree. If I knew how to start the movement, I would.

I agree but if we really want to do the Scotus term limits, we are sadly also going to need to find a way to remove the Senate's power to reject a nominee.

 

[BradStevens]

I agree but if we really want to do the Scotus term limits, we are sadly also going to need to find a way to remove the Senate's power to reject a nominee.

I don't think so. Term starts when the candidate takes the bench. President gets to select for the slot, no matter how long it takes.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It seems to me that term limits - or at least getting rid of lifetime appointments makes sense. I'm not even sure what the benefit of a lifetime appointment is.

It'll almost certainly never happen.

And the reason for this is that there will always be a whole lot of people who prefer the court stay precisely as it is at any moment in time...despite the fact that it's always subject to unexpected changes. And these people will have significant influence with the same state legislatures that would be required to ratify the amendment to the Constitution which would be required to institute term limits.

If, say, Barry Goldwater had led a movement to institute lifetime appointments back when the Warren Court was in its heyday, I feel pretty confident in saying that supporters of Justices Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Clark, etal would've scoffed at the notion. And understandably so! If they were getting the kinds of opinions they wanted to get from the court, why in the world would they support an effort to change it?

I understand why critics of the current court would like to change it. And it doesn't have the first thing to do with ethics, or lifetime appointments, or the number of appellate circuits we have, etc.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I’m all for a constitutional amendment of term limits for the judicial and legislative branches and an age limit.

I’m guessing 2/3-3/4 of the public would agree. If I knew how to start the movement, I would.

Starting it isn't the problem. The problem is finding 38 state legislatures to go along with it. That's always been the hardest part. But I'm not sure there's ever been a harder time to do it than right now.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think so. Term starts when the candidate takes the bench. President gets to select for the slot, no matter how long it takes.

Then an opposition Senate will try to run out the clock, and that will be the main election issue in a midterm with one more pick scheduled to happen the following year. It will get far uglier than Mitch and Garland ever was.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I didn’t realize RBG wasn’t the oldest ever Supreme Court justice. In fact, she wasn’t even second. She was fourth.

Roger Taney was 87.
John Paul Stephens and Oliver Wendell Holmes were both still active at 90.

That’s nuts.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

First, I have no idea what limited presidential immunity has to do with any proposed reforms of the judiciary itself. This is just a response to a single recent opinion -- and is entirely situational. By that I mean that it's all about Trump and the various legal things that came his way as he ramped up another presidential campaign. Ask everybody at some other period of time, in some other situation, and it seems entirely possible you could get precisely the opposite answers -- depending on who is embroiled in what at that time.

Second, I'm quite sure that judicial term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution specifies a number of terms of office. And, of course, the 22nd amendment specifies term limits for presidents -- which didn't exist prior to 1947. Given the absence of terms or term limits for federal judges in the ratified text (it only says good behavior), it seems obvious that Congress lacks the authority to do this by statute.

Again, this is also situational. And, no, it isn't a thing right now because we've determined after 30 years on the bench that Clarence Thomas is a crook. It's a thing right now because Democrats have lost their shit about the opinions being issued by the Roberts court.

Third, a judicial code of ethics may be a little murkier. The lower courts already have one that's imposed by statute -- and administered by the Judicial Conference (which was also created by statute). But the lower courts are entirely a creature of Congress by way of Article I, Section 8. The Supreme Court is its own branch of government. So there are probably separation of powers obstacles here as well -- and it probably explains why the statutory judicial code of ethics has always only been only on the lower courts.

One wonders how Congress would react if the Judicial Branch tried to craft and institute a code of ethics on the Legislative Branch. Congress does this itself -- and for a reason.

Biden, Harris call for Supreme Court term limits

The immunity decision is definitely not all about Trump. The Supreme Court laid down an immunity decision for the office of President that is consistent with the immunity enjoyed by all public officials at every level of government.

Biden, like Sotomayor, is just stupid when it comes to official immunity.

Congress has zero authority to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court.

 

[DANC]

First, I have no idea what limited presidential immunity has to do with any proposed reforms of the judiciary itself. This is just a response to a single recent opinion -- and is entirely situational. By that I mean that it's all about Trump and the various legal things that came his way as he ramped up another presidential campaign. Ask everybody at some other period of time, in some other situation, and it seems entirely possible you could get precisely the opposite answers -- depending on who is embroiled in what at that time.

Second, I'm quite sure that judicial term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution specifies a number of terms of office. And, of course, the 22nd amendment specifies term limits for presidents -- which didn't exist prior to 1947. Given the absence of terms or term limits for federal judges in the ratified text (it only says good behavior), it seems obvious that Congress lacks the authority to do this by statute.

Again, this is also situational. And, no, it isn't a thing right now because we've determined after 30 years on the bench that Clarence Thomas is a crook. It's a thing right now because Democrats have lost their shit about the opinions being issued by the Roberts court.

Third, a judicial code of ethics may be a little murkier. The lower courts already have one that's imposed by statute -- and administered by the Judicial Conference (which was also created by statute). But the lower courts are entirely a creature of Congress by way of Article I, Section 8. The Supreme Court is its own branch of government. So there are probably separation of powers obstacles here as well -- and it probably explains why the statutory judicial code of ethics has always only been only on the lower courts.

One wonders how Congress would react if the Judicial Branch tried to craft and institute a code of ethics on the Legislative Branch. Congress does this itself -- and for a reason.

Biden, Harris call for Supreme Court term limits

The thought of Biden advocating for term limits after spending 50 years in government is laughable.