Just three months after he was sworn into office in 2021, President Joe Biden disposed of a troublesome campaign issue using the oldest trick in the book.
Progressives wanted to overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court to undo the influence of former President Trump’s three appointees. Biden signed an executive order creating a commission to study the issue and report back.
Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review
The commission reported back in December 2021, and Biden sent the report straight to the shelf to collect dust.
But just recently, in his Oval Office address stating that he is stepping down from the presidential race, Biden brought up the issue of reforming the Supreme Court. Then he (or somebody) wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he thanked the 2021 commission for its “insightful analysis” leading to some of his new proposals.
The proposals have a snowball’s chance in Death Valley of ever becoming reality.
First, Biden called for a constitutional amendment to override the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States, in which the court held that former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts in core areas of presidential power, as well as a presumption of immunity for other official acts. Biden said the Constitution now needs a “No Man is Above the Law Amendment.” He completely ignored the Supreme Court’s careful distinctions between official and unofficial acts as well as its analysis of the separation of powers. The president, the court said, is the only individual who is a branch of government.
Biden’s second proposal would end lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. Instead, they would have 18-year term limits and the president would appoint a new justice every two years. Biden wrote that this plan “would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary” and would “reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come.”
Third, Biden would impose a binding “code of conduct” for Supreme Court justices, presumably enforced by the executive branch, to replace the court’s self-governance on matters of ethics and recusal.
The first and third proposals would disrupt the constitutional structure that is built on the separation of powers. Any sitting president could instruct his or her appointees to open investigations, even on baseless charges, into a former president or a Supreme Court justice. Checks and balances would be replaced by an endless cycle of legal harassment and political retaliation.
The second proposal, term limits, would damage the independence of the judiciary. Lifetime appointments insulate the court from the shifting political winds. Supreme Court justices are subject to impeachment, but other than that, they are not accountable to the political branches and they are not put in the position of having to think about getting their next job when they decide important cases.
Executive order?
Sure why not. Gov. toker Brown passed a law in the state legislature called RHNA. After it was passed he stated it was not constitutional under the Calif. Constitution. When cities and counties threatened to ignore him and the un-constitutional law he signed executive orders that withheld funding for these rebellious governments……. regardless of he was a law breaker.
So you see this at the top where Joey signs orders to violate the Constitution of the Nation. They get away with this at all levels. They see the lack of backbone by our side. They then say why not…we get away with anything.
They have a snow-balls hope in heck?
The author seems to not get it they are chipping away at the constitution using case law.
Our side better get it and stand up to these radicals.
This attack is very shamefull