As a reminder, we decided to update on the Ukraine/Russia conflict and the most recent Middle East developments at today’s (August 19) meeting. Seems like Fareed Zakaria was on the same page (see yesterday’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN).
As a reminder, we decided to update on the Ukraine/Russia conflict and the most recent Middle East developments at today’s (August 19) meeting. Seems like Fareed Zakaria was on the same page (see yesterday’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN).
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
One of the topics floated at the end of last Monday’s meeting was Biden’s proposals for reform of the Supreme Court, including a Constitutional amendment to limit justices’ terms to 18 years and staggering appointments so that a president would be able to nominate one justice every two years. Biden has also proposed that Congress adopt an enforceable code of conduct for the Court. The White House describes these proposals as follows:
White House Fact Sheet, “President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law”, 29 July. I’ve omitted item 1 from that Fact Sheet, which describes the proposed Constitutional amendment to effectively overrule the Court’s recent decision regarding presidential immunity from prosecution since that’s not really a Supreme Court reform proposal.
Given the fact that Democrats have held the White House for 12 of the last 20 years, if those proposed Supreme Court reforms had been in effect since 2004 Democrats (Obama and Biden) would have had the chance to nominate six justices, while Republicans (Bush II and Trump) would have been able to nominate three justices. Assuming the Democrats would have nominated more-or-less left-leaning justices and assuming the Senate would have approved those nominations. the make-up of the Supreme Court would have flipped from 6-3 conservative to 6-3 liberal, likely changing the outcome of some significant Constitutional issues, including the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade would have survived) and presidential immunity would have been unchanged (Trump v. US). I imagine the Chevron doctrine would also have survived (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo), and the Court would not have invented the “major questions” doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA).
Here are links to a couple of recent opinion columns and an article that appeared in The New York Times related to this topic :
David Firestone, “Biden is Right: End Lifetime Tenure on the Supreme Court” (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/29/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-term-limits.html?unlocked_article_code=1._U0.XeNA.N6sTaQn3JnWQ&smid=url-share)
Erwin Chemerinsky, The Election Is Crucial to the Supreme Court’s Future. Biden’s Reform Plans Are Not.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/opinion/biden-supreme-court-limits.html?unlocked_article_code=1._U0.L-PB.dwuAOyrE6YaH&smid=url-share)
Elena Shao, “How the Current Supreme Court Would Look Under Biden’s Term-Limit Plan”(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/opinion/biden-supreme-court-limits.html?unlocked_article_code=1._U0.L-PB.dwuAOyrE6YaH&smid=url-share)
You should be able to read all of these even if you don’t have a subscription to The Times.
hRepublican opposition to the Biden proposals has been along the following lines:
“Republicans slammed the push for radical Supreme Court reforms proposed by President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday as “outrageous” and a “threat to Democracy,” comparing the effort to judicial branch overhauls that led to the rise of a socialist dictatorship in Venezuela.”
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), quoted in Victor Nava, “Republicans slam Biden-Harris Supreme Court reforms: ‘Threat to democracy’”, New York Post, 29 July.
“The top congressional Republican, House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, called Biden’s proposals an effort to “delegitimize the court,” and said the changes would not be considered by the chamber, which his party controls.”
Quoted in Jeff Mason and Andrea Shalal, “Biden proposes term limits, code of conduct to rein in ‘extreme’ Supreme Court”, Reuters, 29 July.
I refer you to the article by Elena Shao, above, for the real reason Republicans oppose the proposals.
I haven’t posted anything explaining or criticizing the Biden proposal that Congress adopt an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, beyond the description of that proposal in the White House Fact Sheet. If I find something useful about that, I’ll post it later.