On Monday, President Joe Biden put forth radical alterations to the American supreme court, including the introduction of restrictions on term length and a mandatory behavioural code for the court’s nine justices. However, given the current partisan discord within Congress, these suggestions are unlikely to be implemented.
In a commentary piece appearing in the Washington Post, Mr Biden proposed the overhaul, in conjunction with a constitutional reform aiming to annul the overarching immunity of the American president, as sanctioned in a Supreme court decision on July 1st relating to ex-President Donald Trump. Later that day, an address was scheduled to be given by Mr Biden at the previous President Lyndon B Johnson’s presidential library in Austin, Texas.
“No individual is exempt from the law. Neither the president of the US nor a justice on the American supreme court. Absolutely no one,” Mr. Biden stated in his commentary.
Urging Congress to make enforceable rules compelling justices to disclose gifts, refrain from participating in public political affairs, and step down from cases where they or their spouses have either financial or other kinds of personal stake. He also called for an 18-year limitation to be placed on the term of justices, in contrast to their current life-long tenure.
Just a week after concluding his campaign for re-election and endorsing Vice-president Kamala Harris as the respective Democratic nominee to oppose Mr Trump in the upcoming presidential election on November 5th, Mr Biden put forth these recommendations. Mr Biden, whose presidency had seen the establishment of a commission to examine potential changes to the Supreme Court, has also appointed one of the nine justices, the liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“No individual should be beyond the reach of the law in our democratic society. So it’s essential to ensure that no past president has the ability to evade prosecution for offences committed while occupying the White House,” stated Ms Harris, who has previously served as both a prosecutor and Attorney General of California, in a statement on Monday.
The decision by 2020, which saw a 6-3 conservative majority secured along with Mr Trump’s three appointees, has resulted in the shifting of US law further to the right.
The conservative justices of the court have decreed, using an immunity ruling, that Mr Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss are not subject to federal prosecution as they fall within his constitutional presidential authority. This marks the first time the court has ever acknowledged a form of presidential immunity to prosecution.
In recent times, the court has also withdrawn its acknowledgment of a constitutional abortion right, broadened firearms rights, and denigrated race-conscious university admissions, along with stifling Mr Biden’s plans concerning immigration, student lending, Covid inoculation mandates, and combatting climate change.
The justices of the supreme court differ from other members of the federal judiciary as they do not have to adhere to a compulsory code of conduct. Additionally, they are obliged by law to divulge external revenues and certain gifts, although any food and “personal hospitality” such as stays in a person’s home are usually exempted.
Amid allegations that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted unreported travel from a wealthy beneficiary, the court implemented its first conduct code in November. Justice Samuel Alito has also been criticised by congressional Democrats after it was reported that flags associated with Mr Trump’s 2020 re-election bid were flown outside his residences in Virginia and New Jersey, an act Mrs Alito admitted to.
Opponents argue that the current conduct code is insufficient because it enables judges to independently decide whether to withdraw from cases and offers no enforcement mechanism. Laws would have to be enacted to set term limits and a conduct code, but passing such laws through congress appears improbable, as the Senate is controlled by Democrats and the house majority is held by Republicans.
Furthermore, Mr Biden has proposed a constitutional amendment to ensure serving as president doesn’t automatically provide immunity against a federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction or sentencing. Accomplishing such amendment would be even more challenging since it would need the support of two-thirds of both congressional chambers or a convention summoned by two-thirds of the states. Following this, ratification would be needed from 38 of the 50 state legislatures.
After the immunity ruling was issued in July, a Florida judge, appointed by Mr Trump, dismissed a federal criminal case regarding the former president’s retention of classified material following his departure from office. This verdict is currently being challenged by prosecutors.
For the first time in history, a former president has been charged and convicted. In a New York state court, the jury pronounced Donald Trump guilty of felony charges in May, due to his involvement in paying “hush money” to a porn star in order to sidestep an impending sex scandal prior to the 2016 US election. Additionally, Trump is facing state-level charges in Georgia associated with his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the region, according to Reuters.