President Biden recently proposed reforms to restore trust and accountability to the Supreme Court:
From his first day in office—and every
day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American
democracy and protect the rule of law.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has
overturned long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights.
This Court has gutted civil rights protections, taken away a woman’s right to
choose, and now granted Presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes
they commit in office.
At the same time, recent ethics
scandals involving some Justices have caused the public to question the
fairness and independence that are essential for the Court to faithfully carry
out its mission to deliver justice for all Americans.
President Biden believes that no
one—neither the President nor the Supreme Court—is above the law.
In the face of this crisis of
confidence in America’s democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for
three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:
- No Immunity for Crimes a Former
President Committed in Office: President Biden shares the Founders’
belief that the President’s power is limited—not absolute—and must
ultimately reside with the people. He is calling for a constitutional
amendment that makes clear no President is above the law or immune from
prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This No One Is
Above the Law Amendment will state that the Constitution does not
confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction,
or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.
- Term Limits for Supreme Court
Justices: Congress approved term limits for the Presidency over 75
years ago, and President Biden believes they should do the same for the
Supreme Court. The United States is the only major constitutional
democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court Justices. Term
limits would help ensure that the Court’s membership changes with some
regularity; make timing for Court nominations more predictable and less
arbitrary; and reduce the chance that any single Presidency imposes undue
influence for generations to come. President Biden supports a system in
which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend
eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court.
- Binding Code of Conduct for the
Supreme Court: President Biden believes that Congress should pass
binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that 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. Supreme Court Justices should not be exempt
from the enforceable code of conduct that applies to every other federal
judge.
President Biden and Vice President
Harris look forward to working with Congress and empowering the American people
to prevent the abuse of Presidential power, restore faith in the Supreme Court,
and strengthen the guardrails of democracy. President Biden thanks the
Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its
insightful analysis of Supreme Court reform proposals. The Administration will
continue its work to ensure that no one is above the law – and in America, the
people rule.
There are solid reasons for these reforms:
1)
The Supreme Court’s decision to grand Donald Trump
limited immunity for at least come presidential acts violates a principal that
dates back to 1789, when the Constitution was first ratified
2)
Samuel Alito was born on 4/1/1950, and has been on
the Supreme Court since 1/31/2006 (18 years ago), Clarence Thomas was born on
6/23/1948, and has been on the Supreme Court since 10/23/1991, 33 years ago.
John Robert was born on 1/25/1955, and has been the chief justice since
9/23/2005, 15 years ago.
3)
All members of Congress are bound by a code of
ethics, which was established by a bi-partisan agreement in 2008.
The
Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) is an independent, non-partisan entity
charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and
staff of the United States House of Representatives and, when appropriate,
referring matters to the House Committee on Ethics. In all but one set of
circumstances, the report and findings of the OCE Board must be publicly
released.
The
OCE has a professional staff consisting
primarily of attorneys and other professionals with expertise in ethics law and
investigations. The mission of the OCE and its Board is to assist the House in
upholding high standards of ethical conduct for its Members, officers, and staff
and, in so doing, to serve the American people. Governed by an
eight-person Board of Directors, Members of the OCE
Board are private citizens and cannot serve as members of Congress or work for
the federal government.
Established March
11, 2008, by House Resolution 895, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) is
the first ever independent body overseeing the ethics of the House of
Representatives. The OCE was formed after members of a congressional task force
proposed an independent entity in the U.S. House to increase accountability and
transparency. The OCE's mission is to assist the U.S. House in upholding high
ethical standards with an eye toward increasing transparency and providing
information to the public.
The OCE reviews
allegations of misconduct against House Members, officers, and staff and, when
appropriate, refers investigations to the House Ethics Committee for further
review. While our two-stage investigative process is confidential, in almost
all circumstances, OCE cases sent to the Ethics Committee must become public.
Since the OCE was
created, its authorizing resolution has been renewed each Congress. The OCE has
reviewed a wide variety of allegations relating to earmarks, travel, financial
disclosure, and legal expense funds among other topics.
The OCE publishes a summary of the Board's actions on a quarterly basis. The
reports and findings of the Board are made public according to the OCE's
authorizing resolution. These referrals are available at the reports page. The OCE's investigations are done in two phases. Our Citizen's Guide shows how the OCE fits into the structure of government ethics
enforcement. Visit our FAQs for more details
on how the OCE operates.
Since 1973, judges on the lower federal courts—that is,
federal courts other than the Supreme Court— have been subject to a set of
ethical canons now known as the Code of Conduct for United States Judges
(Judges’ Code of Conduct). The Judicial Conference of the United States
(Judicial Conference), the national policymaking body for the U.S. courts, adopted
the Judges’ Code of Conduct to promote public confidence in the integrity,
independence, and impartiality of the federal judiciary.
On November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court issued the Justices’
Code of Conduct, which was adopted by the sitting Justices. According to a
statement of the Court accompanying the Justices’ Code of Conduct, the Code is
intended to “set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and
principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court,” and, for the
most part, the “rules and principles are not new.” The new code contains five
ethical canons: 1. A Justice Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of
the Judiciary. 2. A Justice Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of
Impropriety in All Activities. 3. A Justice Should Perform the Duties of Office
Fairly, Impartially, and Diligently. 4. A Justice May Engage in Extrajudicial
Activities that Are Consistent with the Obligations of the Judicial Office. 5.
A Justice Should Refrain from Political Activity
Because the Supreme Court possesses the authority to determine
the constitutionality of legislative actions, the Supreme Court itself
would likely play a critical role in determining whether Congress could validly
impose or enforce ethics rules on the Court. There is limited legal
precedent on this issue because Congress and the Supreme Court have
historically taken an approach focused on interbranch comity, declining to test
the full extent of their powers in order to avoid conflict between the
legislative and judicial branches. Thus, Congress has at times deferred to the
Court to set court rules and procedures, and the Court has at times acquiesced
to ethics legislation without formally addressing its constitutionality. It is
therefore difficult to predict whether or how the Court might address the
constitutionality of possible Supreme Court ethics legislation.
The worst offender of the ethics codes is Clarence Thomas. In
addition to the fact that his wife Ginni was involved in attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Clarence Thomas has accepted more than
$4,000,000 from wealthy benefacts, and he also provided guidance to judge
Cannon’s decision of toss out the document case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginni_Thomas
More recently, he has come out in favor of overturning the
Lawrence v. Texas case of 2003, which eliminated penalties for sodomy.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sodomy-arrest-sparks-controversy
Public approval of the Supreme Court has been declining, in
large part to a man names Leonard Leo.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354908/approval-supreme-court-down-new-low.aspx
In 2001, approval of the Supreme Court peaked at 62%. Today,
it is 40%, the lowest total in more than 20 years.
Leonard Anthony Leo (born
November 1965) is an American lawyer and conservative
legal activist. He was the longtime vice president of the Federalist Society and is currently, along with Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the organization's board of directors.
Leo has created a network of influential conservative legal groups funded
mostly by anonymous donors, including The 85 Fund and Concord Fund, which serve as funding hubs for affiliated political
nonprofits. He assisted Clarence Thomas in his Supreme
Court confirmation hearings
and led campaigns to support the nominations of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Leo
Since the reforms proposed by Joe Biden would require legislative approval, they would not likely get passed even if Kamala Harris got elected and eh Democrats eked out a narrow majority in both housed of Congress.
However, there is a simple solution to the problem with the
Supreme Court:
Bribery.
Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an American
attorney and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1988
until his retirement in 2018. He was nominated to the court in 1987 by
President Ronald Reagan, and sworn in on February 18, 1988. After the retirement
of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, he was considered the swing vote on many of
the Roberts Court's 5–4 decisions.
All told, justice Kennedy was on the Supreme Court for 30
years, but was 8 years old when he retired.
Kennedy obviously was in his rights to retire, but here is an
interesting fact:
Justin
Kennedy worked for Goldman Sachs, and then for Deutsche Bank from 1997 to
2009; he became its global head of real estate capital markets. During his time
at Deutsche Bank he helped Donald Trump secure a $640 million loan for a
Chicago real estate project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy
Since Trump has always been a transactional individual, it is
not much of a stretch to imagine that Trump paid Justice Kennedy to retire when
he did.
In my opinion, the court would be a more honest institution if Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both decided to retire. It’s above my pay grade to determine what incentives would be necessary to encourage that to happen – but it is certainly worth exploring.
