I find it truly amazing that Presidental figurehead, Joe Biden, has decided that, while incapable of running for/holding office in a few months, he has the mental where withall to spearhead a pogrom against the Supreme Court and Constitution of the United States!
Equally disturbing is the fact that no one has tried to force their way into the White House to check on his mental accumen? Or demand he be removed via the 25th Amendment.
So let's examine what it is that his "handlers" have signed up the Presidential Corpus to do.
President Joe Biden's recent proposal to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court, limit their terms, and introduce an enforceable code of ethics represents a significant shift in the power dynamics of the federal government. This move, ostensibly aimed at restoring public confidence in an institution he describes as "extreme," raises crucial questions about judicial independence, constitutional fidelity, and the balance of powers envisaged by the Founding Fathers. Historical instances, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt's (FDR) failed court-packing attempt and the abandoning of the Judiciary Act of 2023 by Democrats, serve as cautionary tales against such reforms.
The concept of expanding the Supreme Court, often termed as "court-packing," is not new. FDR's administration faced repudiation when it attempted to increase the number of justices in 1937, following unfavorable Supreme Court rulings on New Deal legislation. Roosevelt proposed adding a justice for each sitting member over the age of 70, which could have increased the bench up to 15 justices. Although presented as a measure to reduce the court's caseload, the plan was widely perceived as a blatant move to obtain favorable rulings, prompting bipartisan opposition and failing spectacularly.
Nearly a century later, the Democratic Party revisited this notion with the Judiciary Act of 2023, seeking to add four justices to the Court. However, this initiative met a similar fate, unable to garner sufficient support even within the party. The refusal to proceed with this Act reflects historical and institutional resistance to altering the Supreme Court's structure solely for perceived political gain.
Biden's recent proposal to limit justices' terms to 18 years and enforce ethics codes might seem a legitimate response to current ethical controversies and diminishing public trust. However, it raises profound constitutional and pragmatic concerns. Article III of the Constitution ensures that justices "hold their Offices during good Behaviour," widely interpreted as a lifetime tenure, to safeguard judicial independence from political pressures. This independence is a cornerstone of the judiciary’s role in maintaining the constitutionally mandated checks and balances.
The suggested term limits and codified ethics, while theoretically improving public accountability, could rather result in a judiciary more susceptible to political influence. For instance, the introduction of an 18-year term would mean new appointments every two years, thereby enabling each President to nominate two justices per term. Instead of depoliticizing the Court, this might heighten its politicization, aligning it more closely with the shifting tides of electoral politics and eroding its role as an impartial arbiter of the law.
These reforms also echo elements of FDR's court-packing strategy, an attempt to circumnavigate judicial obstacles by altering the institution's structure to produce a politically favorable bench. This strategy undermines the separation of powers doctrine and threatens the judiciary's role as a check on executive and legislative overreach.
Additionally, Biden criticizes the Supreme Court's decisions on critical issues such as abortion, voting rights, and affirmative action, branding them as radical departures from settled precedents. While judicial decisions can and should be subject to scrutiny, restructuring the Court in response to specific rulings could set a dangerous precedent. This approach risks transforming the judiciary into a battleground for partisan conflicts, thereby destabilizing the rule of law and the principles of judicial review established in seminal cases like Marbury v. Madison.
While Biden's proposals include plausible ethical reforms, the broader context suggests an attempt at a significant power shift within the federal government. The enforcement of ethics codes and stricter recusal standards could indeed address legitimate concerns, but such reforms must be designed and implemented without compromising judicial independence or appearing as attempts to sway judicial decisions.
The lesson from historical attempts at court-packing, such as FDR's plan, and the more recent Judiciary Act of 2023 is clear: tampering with the structure and functioning of the Supreme Court for perceived short-term gains risks long-term damage to the Constitution's fabric. It could diminish the people's trust in an impartial judiciary, critical to upholding civil liberties and the checks and balances that protect democracy.
President Biden's plan, therefore, must be viewed through this historical lens and evaluated not only for its potential immediate impact but for its broader implications on the American constitutional order. Any attempt to reform the Supreme Court should ensure that its independence and integrity are preserved, thereby maintaining the foundational balance of powers that underpins the United States government.
Comments