The grounds for imposing term limits on the Supreme Court of the United States are sound, reasonable and imperative. Nevertheless, they have nothing to do with the ages of the members, or the structure of the body.
Rather, the reasons align more closely to issues of human
character; for any branch of government, no matter how august or venerable, is only as reliable as the men and women who comprise it.
We have reached a point where the high court, hit by scandal after scandal, is no longer trusted to deliver opinions with objectivity and integrity. Despite this reality, reflected so clearly in opinion polls, let alone ethics scandals, public comments by some
justices and radical opinions, the court refuses to do what the other branches of government do (routinely), and that is police itself.
And so the only recourse, is to do what President Joe Biden has done, even as he teeters on the edge of dropping his run for a second term: propose sweeping changes to the court, including term limits and an
ethics code with teeth, which means one that is enforceable.
The proposals are long overdue, but there is one problem — the changes would require constitutional amendments or congressional action, both of which are essentially impossible in the current political climate. The proposal, then, is really a statement of dissent; a call for a better way, even as the power brokers in this country refuse to
take it.
“The vast majority of the country, regardless of party, believes the justices should not serve for life but they should be subject to basic oversight like Congress and the executive are,” Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a group that advocates for Supreme Court reform, told NPR.
The president is also considering calling for a constitutional amendment limiting the broad presidential immunity the court granted earlier this year, an anonymous source told the New York Times. For all the justified talk about Biden’s age and fitness, and
the increasing pressure for him to not seek another term, the proposed recommendations are sound, on point and would prove beneficial for the court and American civic life.
“(The immunity ruling) is a dangerous precedent (that means) there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden has said.
Justices currently serve lifetime appointments, and the protection the terms afford them has produced an unseemly arrogance toward critics. Many legal experts, for example, have said Chief Justice John Roberts went beyond legal arguments in the recent presidential immunity decision. Roberts mocked the three liberal dissenters for striking “a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”
While the proposals will almost certainly not advance, they are welcome — a sign the president recognizes the problems afflicting the high court. The
woes surfaced last year, with investigations reporting that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito received lavish gifts from wealthy Republican donors. Both men denied that the gifts impacted any rulings they made.
Alito, who in 2008 took a luxury fishing trip with a GOP donor who later had cases before the court, also became the subject of controversy when the New York Times published a photo of his front lawn, depicting an inverted U.S. flag that symbolizes loyalty to Donald Trump. It became a popular symbol following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in Washington,
D.C. The justice said his wife flew the flag, but left unsaid was how a justice would allow such a political statement to be made, particularly with cases related to the insurrection appearing before the court.
The backlash from these reports was predictable — and immediate. Most Americans believe the justices are fashioning their decisions to accommodate their ideologies. The most recent job approval
ratings are hovering at historic lows, between 40% and 43%, according to Gallup polls.
Beyond the ethics concerns, the justices have made sweeping decisions — overturning Roe v. Wade, eliminating gun safety legislation, blocking affirmative action for college admissions and broadening presidential immunity — that have redefined life in America.
It should be noted that in his first term, Trump appointed three justices who have proved decisive in many of these radical decisions that have contributed to calls for reform. For those who are considering sitting out the presidential election, then, these recommendations also serve as a reminder that the best path to reform is through the ballot box.
“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court,” Biden recently told fellow Democrats, referring to the proposals, according to the New York Times. “I don’t want to prematurely announce it, but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court and what we do.”
Biden intended to reveal his proposals last weekend, but the assassination attempt on Trump upset those plans. He then tested positive for COVID during a campaign trip to Las Vegas, a diagnosis that amplified calls for him to bow out of the presidential race. A crazy presidential race has become crazier every day.
Like Biden's future within the party, his
Supreme Court proposals are tenuous, but these recommendations are sound, and they should be pursued, regardless of who ends up leading the party and the nation.
