Supreme Court Reforms
President Biden will call on Congress to impose term limits and a code of conduct on the Supreme Court while also drafting limits on presidential immunity, a White House official said.
Biden will discuss the proposed reforms during remarks on Monday at the LBJ Presidential Library, in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, the official said. Biden also addressed his desire for Supreme Court reform in an op-ed published Monday morning.
Biden's reforms would eliminate any immunity a former president enjoys for crimes committed while in office.
Regarding the Supreme Court, Biden wants to impose a term limit of 18 years for justices.
Biden argued the new Supreme Court code of conduct should require justices to "disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest."
Thoughts? Do you agree with any of the proposed reforms?I agree with all of them....
This third branch of government seem to have little checks and balances as compared with the other 2.Do you have any idea why that is? It seems like the founders of the US thought a lot about checks and balances but it seems like the Supreme Court was left out of those discussions.
The court established authority and judicial review to interpret the law was accomplished in the early 19 th century. I don't think that as much attention was paid to its power and how it would be subject to checks and balances that applied so much firmly to the Legislative and Executive Branchs.
I prefer to say that the only way to prove that something won't be done is to require that it can't be done.
This goes for every ideological spectrum on the court, there needs to be a code of conduct by those on the bench to remain above the fray and operate impartially without taking gifts and perks from those that stand to gain from favorable court decisions and that means anyone and everyone. A code of conduct that can be given oversight by the other 2 Branches of Government. So NOBODY just gets to do whatever they want.
I don't favor a situation where ANYBODY is beyond being held accountable. I will never assume that even the angels among us are beyond being corrupted. There are no prima donnas in my universe and I make no exceptions.
Members of Congress and the executive branch can be called out for taking bribes or otherwise abusing the discretion granted them in their positions. Whose holding the court to these standards?
Yes, I believe the time has come for term limits before the institution starts to see itself as a power in of itself.Congress is the "who" that holds Justices accountable. They can be removed by impeachment. With the triggering determination being "good behavior," The House has a broad range of 'bad behavior' antics to pick from. Or, they could make up their own bad behavior charge.
GAThanks for that clarification, maybe we need a more exacting standard as to what constitutes "good behavior"
Good luck with that. Whose standard for "good behavior" should be used? Can it be described more clearly than porn or high crimes and misdemeanors?
GAAs if there wasn't enough turmoil... man this Administration knows how to stir up trouble and make matters worse.
I wonder if Biden realizes he is going to be remembered in history as being a worse President than Carter, when we get some years down the road?This tact isn't surprising. It's political pandering for votes. Trump is doing it too.
Pres. Biden knows he doesn't have the votes for his proposal, and Trump knows (Ok, I'm 'assuming' he has to know) he's chumming the water with both hands. I think it hurts them both with the voters they should be fishing for—non-base voters.
GAIt is political pandering... Perhaps...
The trend has been what is unthinkable today, they make into a debatable issue, so that tomorrow the unacceptable change becomes acceptable.
Two elections ago they threw out the idea of transgenders using bathrooms meant for the sex they were pretending to be...
People, the majority, rejected the idea outright...but the debate and the attention to the matter was given plenty of air time....
Fast forward 8 years, Biden makes transgender rights a priority and the new matter getting plenty of air time are all those wonderful trans athletes winning all those championships and medals.
Today they attack the authority and legitimacy of both the Presidency and the Supreme Court...
So that tomorrow they can be subjugated to a higher authority... So that they are no longer a threat to Democracy.. . . and there is that.
Maybe your theory is like the saying about being paranoid. "It isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you." Maybe it's not a conspiracy theory if . . .
GAWhat if I made a prediction that our coming election has the same type of contentious outcome we see occurring in Venezuela today...
Do you think that is too much of a reach?
Or is that just too obvious to be considered a theory or prediction?Taking "contentious outcome" as a general non-acceptance of the election results—even legitimate ones, by Trump's base if he loses, I don't think it's too much of a reach.
I also think Harris will win—barring any 'October surprises.' For the reasons you mentioned, and because Trump seems to be tripling down on the rhetoric for his base. That won't bring in the more moderate voters he will need, it will turn them off.
During the convention, the party tried to expand its tent, and Trump's acceptance speech closed it to all but his fervent supporters. There aren't enough of them to elect him.
That could change, but I'm not optimistic.
GAOh Gawd! Forget the vomit bag & bring me a stiff drink!
What standard? The standard of doing your job. As a lowly federal employee purchasing agent over 40 years ago, I would be fired for taking game tickets or accepting a bottle of Jack Daniels to help warm the cold Montana winter nights from any proposed vendor in a procurement of goods and services. It is called integrity, not taking bribes or Gifts. If I had to do it, I can't see why those at the highest levels of government will not support the integrity of the Court by maintaining the essential impartiality and being professional enough to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But, again, as a progressive, I don't believe that some are more equal than others. I expect the "standard" to be held as an exemplary one for people at such lofty perches in Government. Being "good" means more than just staying out of jail "high crimes and misdemeanors" in regards to your behavior and performance.
Here's a door for ya . . .
Your comparison sucks. Did you have to wear a name tag too? (oops, that slipped by the filters, sorry ;-) )
Drawing on recall, I'll use Justice Thomas as an example of your "gifts" complaint. (with a caveat the gist of the details is the point, not their exactness)
One of the claims was that he and his wife took very expensive vacations with rich family friends (30+ yrs?) —on their friends' dime. To the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars of estimated costs.* These were described as gifts because the friend (friends?) might someday have some dealings with the Court.
*much of the 'Big' costs were retail estimates of comparable yacht or private plane accommodations.
I read those details as 30+ year family friends sharing time together, and they did it staying with the rich friends. Both sides are already rich (relatively, I think), so the friend isn't 'buying' him with fancy vacations. (The Bucket List just came to mind)
I don't recall the details, but I did look and remember that the 'business tie' inference was weak, at best. I didn't buy it.
If you weren't stuck on the political perspective of whatever could be construed from the available details, you might consider that those details could be as innocent as my description. If you backtracked the details of the business influence angle you might find it's not as solid as the headlines you follow say it is.
But that won't happen. You look at a Supreme Court Justice, a position that is an earned career pinnacle, a recognized honor for achievement, and want to compare them to a lowly Federal employee and a bottle of Jack Danials. Ghesh.
GAI was not of the impression that Clarance Thomas was on the wealth scale of those millionaires and billionaires that seek to bribe him.
It is not a political perspective but one of ethics, regardless of what side you fall on.
I don’t care about earned career pinnacles, it is just more of a reason that those that attain such set the example in their behavior and not believe that they get to skate just because they cross a certain career threshold. Because we all look to them as the epitome of impartiality expected from those on the bench at our highest court.
I could agree with term limits. The gift thing is iffy, depending on determining what qualifies as "gifts." Refraining from political activity seems a no-brainer, but qualifying "political activity" could be a deal-breaker like gifts.
The code of conduct demand is insulting. Candidates have obviously adhered to 'proper' codes of conduct throughout their professional lives—enough so to be considered for the Supreme Bench. However, once they earn that trust, a demand for a new code of conduct is really telling them we don't trust them. Nope, that doesn't work for me.
GAI would agree with your comments about the code of conduct except for the current dictator-wannna-be here in Brazil, Alexander Moraes. You may have seen stories about his spat with Elon Musk, as he demanded that X turn over all info on accounts that publish anything political. The things he does on a daily basis are unprofessional, everything from swinging the last presidential election to his buddy to odering arrests of those who disagree with him. Did he commit these crimes before being appointed by the Workers Party? No. Anyone can change, and just because someone has been trustworthy in the past does not mean they always will be.
I don't think an 'official' code of conduct would fix the problem in your example. But that's just a perception . . .
GA
To what purpose?
Why are the powers of the separate branches under attack?
Why the sudden need to be able to sue a President, remove a Supreme Court Justice?
How does it serve our society to make the people who expose themselves to serve their country, more easily attackable?
We have already witnessed how the courts can be abused to attack a person based on political beliefs, how precedence can be ignored, how laws can be rewritten, how statutes can be changed, so that the pursuit of a guilty verdict can be achieved.
Biased Opinions become acceptable facts, for those with the same political bias.
How can Justice be blind, when the hangman's noose is set for anyone that is unwilling to follow the political bias of the moment that holds power?
When the Democrats get done changing the laws, statutes, and Supreme Court... do the Republicans also get to rewrite the laws, statutes and Supreme Court when they are returned to power?
Or is this to ensure that there is no real difference in bias or opinion in the future?
To help ensure any change in power is in name only, never in content or belief.
Impartial 'Justice is blind' with precedence and proof being required... this has clearly been a blind-spot in the takeover of the institutions that uphold the nation... too many Judges that have not bent the knee still in the system, a means needs to be installed to be able to remove those justices not adhering to the ruling ideology of the time.I have to respectfully disagree with you on a couple of your "disagreements." First, anyone who has worked for government, knows the rules about gifts, and they know their limits. Even as a state employee, I was given a rule book to follow from everything from the type of shoes I was forbidden to wear at work to the acceptance of gifts. I couldn't accept anything from anybody except known gifts given at work. I could give a birthday present to a coworker, but an outside company couldn't come in and give anyone a simple T shirt or a coffee mug. But once a year all the insurance companies came in and gave us all kinds of little rinky tinky things like pens, fingernail clippers, letter openers, etc., which we were allowed to accept. But if any of them had offered me a cruise or a Land Cruiser, I would have had to turn it down, and I was just an editor for the state. Justice Thomas knew the rules. He had to be an expert in law and rules to be appointed. Just because his "friend" was a billionaire and lavished him with personal gifts was no excuse. If the giver had been his brother or brother in law, then he might have been able to prove that it was out of love rather than influence peddling. You may feel like that is a gray area, but to a reporter or a government employee, it is more black than white and definitely not in the mid range gray.
A code of conduct is not insulting. In fact, it is insulting for them not to have one. All attorneys and court judges below the SC have them and are expected to adhere to them. That is one reason why there are bar associations and judicial associations to monitor conduct. To say that it is insulting to expect the lawyer-judges in the highest court in the nation to be exempt from a code of conduct when no other barristers are is unreasonable. It is comparable to saying that the president is immune from criminal acts (like shooting somebody on the street) during the term of presidency. Please do a little more studying on the law, lawyers, and judges. Your statement that "Candidates have obviously adhered to 'proper' codes of conduct throughout their professional lives ...." isn't necessarily true. Some just haven't been caught while others have had friends in high places who have turned a blind eye.
I'm really surprised at your answer. You are one of the most level headed, if not the most level headed, of the conservatives.I see it as a matter of trust—of the position.
A Justice has abided* by all of the 'codes' you mentioned in their path to the court's bench: from their time as a law student to their time as a licensed lawyer and all the years of practice and behaviors that led to their appointment to the Bench. If they hadn't it's doubtful they would be considered.
I say a lifetime of honest achievement, the attainment of the highest career goal—by decree of their peers (all by adhering to all the codes and expectations placed on them from the start), earns them a level of trust beyond worrying about a bottle of Jack or a lavish vacation treat from a lifelong family friend.
The only difference between Thomas' trips and those of the least traveled Justice is the dollar amount. If the actions are the same then both should be violations of conduct. But they aren't. One is seen as only a little bit pregnant and the other as full-blown pregnant.
*A curious question that I bet someone can answer: how many 'corrupt' bad Justices have we had? Not bad as in wrong decisions, or decisions of ideological differences, but bad as corruptly bribed?
We have different views of what is insulting, relative to this issue. If I had traveled the lifetime path of a Justice—following all the rules and codes and ethical expectations throughout my career, I would feel insulted to be told we trust you to be our ultimate arbiter, but we don't trust you to be an honest one.
Achievement deserves reward, in this case, the award is trust.
GAThis is not about Trust... in the sense of it being earned.
This is not about corruption... in the sense of a Justice accepting favors and gifts.
This is about being able to remove a Justice that does not see the world through the prism of the appropriate ideology.
Justices that are supporters and adherents to the Constitution are a definite problem for those who want to undermine or nullify the Constitution.
Right now, they do not have the means to remove a Justice that is principled and determined to do what they believe is the right thing.
They desperately want to be able to 'fix' that matter.
It goes to the reason why I believe Harris will win, the establishment is corrupt beyond all measure of correction, is more powerful than the combined forces that are standing against it (Supreme Court Justices, Elon Musk, Trump and his 75 million supporters)... the American people have been dumbed down enough, or fallen victim to the decades of propaganda and lies, that they are willing to cheer on the person(s) that are subjugating them and ensuring their children live in a much more oppressive world.The reward for their achievement is a $274,000 salary, that should be more than enough. No one is above suspicion and not monitored for ethical behavior.
Funny how this has become a thing of concern, a couple hundred years into our Nation... things had a way of working out prior to today.
This is a very dangerous government/administration we have today... we have mid-ranged nukes being placed in Germany, we have the Mossad assassinating leaders inside of Iran... this attack on our Supreme Court is just one more example of a government/administration gone wrong.Just so we all know where this is heading...
Kamala Harris says mandatory gun confiscation is "a great idea" — “ if Congress doesn’t act within the first hundred days of my administration, I will take executive action”
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/stat … 7258421563Again, this is a misrepresentation of what Harris said. She said if elected president, she would wait 100 days for Congress to enact reasonable gun safety laws and if they failed to do so, she would take executive action. Harris clarified that her intention was not to confiscate legally owned guns.
Harris clarified in her response that if people “want to go hunting, that’s fine” but that she would advocate for new gun safety laws including requiring universal background checks and a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Harris also said she would put fugitives from justice on the list of people who should not be able to purchase any weapon, but she did not say she wanted to confiscate weapons or threaten citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
“There are people in Washington, D.C., supposed leaders, who have failed to have the courage to reject a false choice which suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away,” she said.
Reuters (and others) found no examples of Harris ever saying this direct quote pertaining to confiscating guns. The quote is likely a misinterpretation of public remarks she has made about executive orders she would take regarding gun safety laws. Harris did not say that if she were elected that she would sign an executive order to forcibly confiscate guns.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/f … KBN25G1GM/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9224415629
Every other judge in the nation has to submit to a code of conduct. Are the supreme court judges so righteous they are without sin (fault)? I sincerely doubt it. They are not some super human being. A code of conduct is reasonable in my eyes.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgesh … tes-judges
Term limits I am undecided if to be held to 18 years.
As far as the immunity for the president for any 'official' act I think it needs to be further defined. Right now it is close to a blank check.Nope, he must leave the Supreme Court be. Term limits on everything but....
It is a life appointment, unless a member goes rogue, working against the U.S., then they, as Presidents, can be impeached.I agree with all of them, however, I would take issue with a term of 18 years. I think that is still too long. I could agree with a term of nine years limited to two terms totaling 18 years. That way a misbehaving justice could be removed after nine years.
President Op-Ed
Washington Post
Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law
This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.
But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.
If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.
And that’s only the beginning.
On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.
I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.
What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.
That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.
First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.
Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.
Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.
All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.
We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.
In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule."If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences."
What about when political opponents of said President exaggerate, spin and lie about the Presidents actions - like we saw concerning Jan. 6, 2021 - and go after that President tooth and nail to the point that nothing can be accomplished?
As far as gifts go there are reported and unreported gifts at question from my understanding. I'm not arguing one way or the other at this time. There are article after article about the amount of those gifts. One website, Fix the Court, explains them and has a spreadsheet of them going back to 01/01/04.
A Staggering Tally: Supreme Court Justices Accepted Hundreds of Gifts Worth Millions of Dollars by Fix the Court (June 6,2024)
https://fixthecourt.com/2024/06/a-stagg … f-dollars/
The link to the spreadsheet follows next;
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … =957411191
Thomas is at the bottom of the spreadsheet and the amount is astounding compared to the other Justices.I agree with all the points raised by President Biden. This would be a great service to his people before he vacates his office.
I must say, I do appreciate the Harris campaign.
Biden's campaign was about "back to normal" and "unify the country" and "save America from tyranny" all a bunch of BS... Biden had no interest in normal or unifying the country. Biden was delusional on day one, and it only got worse with time.
The Harris campaign is full frontal Progressive, New Age America, down with the Past, down with the Patriarchy, get in line and accept your status or get canceled and she doesn't make any excuses for it.
I appreciate that, telling America what you really stand for, and running on that, not deception, not BS.
More than 160,000 white women for Kamala Harris Zoom call
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/more-t … 024-07-26/
Kamala Harris says 'equity' should be a focus of Congress' border talks
https://thepostmillennial.com/kamala-ha … rder-talks
Alex Soros endorses Kamala Harris for 2024 election
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking- … e_vignetteWhatever reforms Biden is promising it would take a Constitutional Amendment, which requires 2/3 Congressional approval and the demand of 37 States. Not going to happen. Just because a particular political party doesn't agree with the SCOTUS they jointly appointed doesn't mean they can change the U.S. Constitution.
She is practically perfect. It is working out so well for ya'll.
Related Discussions
- 52
Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
by IslandBites 4 months ago
The Supreme Court’s biggest decisions of the term are coming. I thought it'll be good to have one thread, kind of a tracker of the upcoming decisions.The high court has 10 opinions left to release over the next week before the justices begin their summer break.
- 45
The number of Supreme Court justices
by Kathleen Cochran 2 months ago
The population of the US was a small fraction of what it has been since the number of Supreme Court justices was set. Many European countries have high courts with higher numbers than ours even though their populations are much smaller. Politics aside, Is it representative of our population to have...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 30
The Party grooms another Presidential puppet.
by Barefootfae 11 years ago
http://daily-download.com/chelsea-clint … ournalist/Of course. I have no doubt Chelsea is a wonderful girl.I also have no doubt she is hideously unqualified. When the time comes that won't matter.Just like the last two Supreme Court justices.
- 38
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have protection from prosecution
by Readmikenow 2 months ago
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply...
- 26
Justice Amy Coney Barret's Confirmation
by ga anderson 3 years ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...