Biden’s judicial reform proposal
By 
As I was saying about Trump v. US finally jolting some liberals who still had a lingering attachment to noble sentiments about the Supreme Court:
President Joe Biden on Monday proposed sweeping changes to the U.S. Supreme Court, including term limits and a binding code of conduct for its nine justices, but opposition from Republicans in Congress means the proposals have little chance of enactment.
Biden called on Congress to pass binding and enforceable rules that would require the 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. He also urged the adoption of an 18-year term limit for the justices, who currently serve life tenures.
Biden called for the revamp, as well as a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad presidential immunity recognized in a July 1 Supreme Court ruling involving former President Donald Trump, in an opinion piece published in the Washington Post.
These are all good ideas on the merits:
Biden’s proposed SCOTUS reforms appear straightforward and reasonable.
What’s the main counter to each?
1) I want Trump to get away with crimes
2) Lifetime appt means not worrying about next job
3) I want Thomas & Alito to get expensive stuff for free from interested billionaires https://t.co/lelPHloH9g— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) July 29, 2024
And Alito and Thomas have single-handedly undermined the anti-corruption argument against term limits, which was never very convincing in the first place.
Obviously at best we’re playing the long game here, and nothing that requires a constitutional amendment is ever going to pass. But it’s still worth putting put there. Part of this is to send a signal that the pro-democratic faction of American politics is never going to accept Trump v. Hawaii as settled law, and while it’s hard to envision a liberal median Supreme Court justice in the foreseeable future there needs to be an agenda in mind should some of the contingencies that have allowed Republicans to dominate the Court since 1970 start breaking the other way. This also lays the bed for other kinds of resistance as “Democratic presidents are not allowed to govern” becomes increasingly entrenched as doctrine.