SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
court reform
Who Will Check the Supreme Court That Should Be Checking Trump?
The nine justices of the nation's highest court are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act?
Dec 05, 2024
FBI director nominee-in-waiting Kash Patel writes children’s books in which his character, a wizard, vows to protect “King Donald.” (Patel also peddled pills to reverse the Covid-19 vaccine and produced a song recorded by imprisoned January 6 insurrectionists called “Justice for All.”) Ominous credentials to head the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency, one with a history of abuse.
We’ve been vocal about what’s gone wrong at the Supreme Court. It has been captured by a faction of a faction. But if we’ve ever needed an independent judiciary, we need it now. If guardrails crumble and the powerful quail before Donald Trump, the high court may be one of the last — indeed, at times, the only — protectors of the Constitution.
All of which makes the latest revelations about the Court so dismaying — the inside story of how the justices adopted an ethics code that is more loophole than law.
In the past two years, ProPublica and other news outlets have revealed startling misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas for years had his lifestyle secretly subsidized by billionaire Harlan Crow. The billionaire provided lavish vacations, paid for the education of Thomas’s surrogate son, and even bought and renovated the justice’s mother’s house (with her living in it). If this happened with state legislators in Albany or Sacramento, we’d call it corruption. Justice Samuel Alito, too, took luxury travel from yet another billionaire, also without disclosing it. Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society played matchmaker between the judges and the billionaires. ProPublica won the Pulitzer Prize for its exposés.
Public outcry was loud enough that the Court last year felt compelled to issue a first-ever code of conduct. The justices explained that this was only to clear up a “misunderstanding” by citizens. Instead of being the only judges with no ethics code, they now had the weakest.
Now The New York Times has revealed the fevered deliberations that produced this result. It reads like the doings of sneaky pols on House of Cards. Justices sent each other memos in sealed envelopes because they were so fearful of leaks. Thomas and Alito “wrote off the Court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” write Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickle. The liberal justices pushed for a strong code with an enforcement mechanism, such as a panel of retired judges, to no avail.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newspaper reported, was most vocal in opposition and judicial self-regard. “The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it,” the article reports. Gorsuch wrote a long memo of complaint as the rules were being drafted.
The result was a tepid code that did little to boost public confidence. It violates a core principle: Nobody is so wise that they should be the judge in their own case. The justices decide on their own when they must “recuse,” or refrain from hearing a case. Nor must they explain why they stepped back, though some justices have begun to do that. Most important, there is no mechanism for enforcement.
So the Court has served up mush. But the story need not end there. Congress has set rules for the federal courts throughout history, as envisioned by the Constitution. Samuel Alito has waxed indignant about this. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Justice Elena Kagan felt compelled to respond publicly. “It just can’t be that the Court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else,” she said. “We’re not imperial.”
This again shows why the Court needs fundamental reform. An 18-year term limit for justices would make the Court much more accountable. It accords with a fundamental American precept: Nobody should hold too much power for too long. It’s also widely popular. The most recent Fox News poll on the issue showed that 78 percent of respondents backed term limits — in other words, strong majorities of Republicans and independents as well as Democrats.
In recent years, congressional Republicans have been hostile to Supreme Court reform. With Congress in Republican hands for the next two years at least, there’s an opportunity to deepen support among conservatives and liberals, legal scholars, bar leaders, and others. It’s an idea whose time has come.
We need a strong, independent, principled Supreme Court. The ruling last summer granting vast criminal immunity empowers the president to law-break with impunity. Major rulings are due on vital issues — including the oral arguments today on state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Civil liberties violations likely to accompany mass deportation of noncitizens will surely reach the justices. This term will test whether this is a principled Court or, as seems increasingly likely, a MAGA Court.
No, Kash Patel is not a wizard. The justices wear robes, but they aren’t either. They are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act? The backstage saga of their ethics code doesn’t augur well.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harris Backs Biden Call for Supreme Court Overhaul, Immunity Reversal
"These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law," said Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Jul 29, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday detailed his plan to reform the U.S. Supreme Court and address one of its most controversial recent decisions in an op-ed published by The Washington Post.
Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, quickly endorsed his plan, which calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices, an enforceable code of ethics, and a constitutional amendment reversing the court's decision to grant presidents broad immunity for official acts.
"These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law," Harris said in a statement.
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court they can trust. It's time for Congress to follow the White House's lead and take action to rein in this out-of-touch court."
After long resisting calls to push court reform, Biden told progressive lawmakers he would propose a plan earlier this month. His shift came weeks after a series of court rulings that granted current and former U.S. presidents broad immunity; overturned the Chevron doctrine empowering federal agencies to rely on their expertise in crafting environmental, public health, labor, and other regulations; and supported the criminalization of homelessness.
The majority-conservative Supreme Court—three of whose members were appointed by former U.S. President Donald Trump—has also in recent years reversedRoe v. Wade, ended affirmative action, and struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness program. It has done all this even as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have been at the center of a series of ethics scandals involving undisclosed gifts from right-wing billionaires and a refusal to recuse themselves from Trump's immunity case despite signals that they or their loved ones supported the January 6, 2021 insurrection to overturn the 2020 election results.
"What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public's confidence in the court's decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms," Biden wrote on Monday. "We now stand in a breach."
Biden first called for an amendment to the Constitution called the "No One Is Above the Law" amendment, which would address the court's decision on presidential immunity by clarifying that no president is broadly immune from criminal prosecution, including for official acts.
"We are a nation of laws—not of kings or dictators," Biden wrote.
Next, Biden backed a system of term limits for the court whereby a president would appoint one justice every two years to serve a total of 18 years.
"The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court," Biden noted. "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."
Finally, the president called for a binding ethics code, as every other federal judge is subject to.
"This is common sense," Biden wrote. "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."
Biden stopped short of endorsing court expansion, a move backed by many court reform advocates. It is also unlikely that any of Biden's proposals would currently pass the Republican-controlled House or win over the 60 votes needed in the Senate.
"President Biden's plan renews the system of checks and balances and also establishes binding ethics reforms for a court that has been embroiled in scandal in recent years."
Still, his proposal was welcomed by accountability and good governance groups.
"This is a remarkable and historical step forward on the path to reforming SCOTUS," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, said on social media. "No one should have public power for so long; no one should be the judge in their own case; and no one should be above the law."
Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said in a statement: "The White House's endorsement of these critical court reforms comes at a time of increasing questions about the lack of transparency and accountability at the court. The White House's new calls for court reform will vastly boost the prospects of moving this reform legislation forward."
Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said that the group "enthusiastically supports this effort by the Biden-Harris administration and lawmakers to impose term limits and a binding code of ethics on the Supreme Court, and we applaud the support for an amendment to ensure that no president is above the law."
Stand Up America noted that court reform is widely popular with U.S. voters: A vast majority want Congress to pass reform, including 18-year term limits, and 78% want it to impose a code of ethics.
"Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court is at historic lows, which is no surprise given the Roberts Court's blatant disregard for ethical standards, long-standing precedent, and Americans' fundamental freedoms," Stand Up America's executive director, Christina Harvey, said. "We applaud President Biden and Vice President Harris for supporting urgently needed reforms to restore trust in our nation's highest court."
Stand Up America's founder and president Sean Eldridge said on social media that the 18-year term-limit proposal in particular was a "huge step forward for meaningful court reform."
Both Eldridge and Harvey noted that 49 out of 50 U.S. states impose either term limits or retirement ages on their top judges, or have them chosen via election.
"The Supreme Court should be the gold standard for judicial ethics, yet conservative justices have accepted millions of dollars in gifts, attended private retreats with billionaire conservative donors, and failed to meet legal disclosure requirements," Harvey said. "Americans deserve a Supreme Court they can trust. It's time for Congress to follow the White House's lead and take action to rein in this out-of-touch court."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus seemed ready to take up that challenge.
"We are grateful to President Biden for taking action on this longtime priority of the progressive movement to address the crisis facing our democracy," Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said in a statement. "We call on our colleagues in Congress to protect the foundation of our country by passing the Judiciary Act to expand the Supreme Court; Supreme Court Ethics, Transparency, & Recusal Act (SCERT) to require a binding code of ethics and transparency measures for justices; and the TERM Act setting term limits for justices."
Another way Congress could act would be to put forward Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, which journalist John Nichols noted had many things in common with Biden's proposal.
In a thread on social media, Nichols put the movement for court term limits in the context of U.S. history.
"The U.S. has since its founding regularly amended the Constitution to guard against an imperial presidency—including the term limits outlined in the 22nd Amendment and ratified in 1951. Now, President Biden proposes judicial term limits to guard against an imperial Supreme Court," he wrote.
After describing the president's plan, Nichols continued: "President Biden's plan renews the system of checks and balances and also establishes binding ethics reforms for a court that has been embroiled in scandal in recent years—as justices have refused to recuse themselves from cases where they have conflicts of interest."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Seize the Crown, King Biden! (Then Arrest Trump and Stack the Court)
One of his Majesty's first so-called “official acts" should be to issue an arrest warrant for his insurrectionist predecessor, Donald Trump, for trying to overthrow the U.S. government and the constitution. After that, pack the court with sane justices to restore law and order in the land.
Jul 03, 2024
If Joe Biden wants to recuperate his lagging campaign and demonstrate his presidential strength, he should immediately seize upon the opportunity just presented to him by the six wingnuts on the Supreme Court in their ruling in Trump v. United States (the most appropriately named case this term). He should begin by unilaterally (or unitarily as the theory goes) defining what constitute “official acts” of the President. As the power now vested in him by this decision this should be well within his purview and should be conceived as broadly and deeply as possible.
Of course, one of his first such “official” acts should be to issue an arrest warrant for his insurrectionist predecessor for trying to overthrow the U.S. government and the constitution. Under his new authority, he should be able to waive any trial (or associated delays and appeals) and summarily jail the now convicted felon, forthwith. And, it should be crystal clear that he would be able to deal appropriately with any of the MAGA crowd that attempts to rise up in response to this action. National Guard anyone?
Of course, Biden being Biden, he has already snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by declaring that he will “follow the law” no matter what kinds of powerful openings this ruling provides. You can bet that his predecessor and successor will have no such compunction.
He should then turn his attention to making the government and our “democracy” functional. A first task here would be rectifying the stolen U.S. Supreme Court seats by packing the Court with sane justices who will follow the law instead of their cultish “leader.” I recognize the risk here that such a Court might seek to reign in a newly empowered President, but careful vetting and selection could circumvent these possible inconveniences. He might then turn his attention to the electoral system to make sure that one person/one vote is the rule rather than the too rare exception. Get rid of the Electoral College, outlaw partisan gerrymandering, and expand access to the vote and make voting itself easier. Then it’s on to Congressional reform: eliminate the filibuster, greatly expland the power of Presidential signing statements to shape legislation to his liking, declare Presidential vetoes the final word on legislation he dislikes.
Beyond these good government tasks, it is tantalizing to imagine a slate of non-reversible executive orders covering all those vital national needs that an oppositional Congress and the courts have impeded for years: women’s’ bodily autonomy, universal health care, child tax credits, climate legislation and a real green deal, strengthening pro-labor and environmental protection laws, real immigration reform, curbing wealth and income inequality, reshaping tax policy and spiraling corporate greed, addressing homelessness, and on and on.
Of course, Biden being Biden, he has already snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by declaring that he will “follow the law” no matter what kinds of powerful openings this ruling provides. You can bet that his predecessor and successor will have no such compunction.
And further, Biden being Biden, the whole notion of a vivid and vibrant imagination guiding political or policy action is largely inconceivable. But perhaps some of his close advisors (if they can’t persuade him to drop out which would be eminently preferable) will see this as a chance to hone their puppeteering skills during the his final months in office. Could do the country some good.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular