{"id":2315726,"date":"2024-07-29T20:36:01","date_gmt":"2024-07-30T00:36:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-supreme-court-reforms-already-on-life-support-legal-experts-say-washington-examiner\/"},"modified":"2024-07-29T20:41:30","modified_gmt":"2024-07-30T00:41:30","slug":"biden-supreme-court-reforms-already-on-life-support-legal-experts-say-washington-examiner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-supreme-court-reforms-already-on-life-support-legal-experts-say-washington-examiner\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden Supreme Court reforms already on life support, legal experts say &#8211; Washington Examiner"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">28<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fbiden-supreme-court-reforms-already-on-life-support-legal-experts-say-washington-examiner%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2315726&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>President Joe Biden&#8217;s proposal to \u2064reform the Supreme Court is facing significant challenges, according to legal experts across the political spectrum. His plan includes a constitutional amendment aimed at clarifying that former presidents are \u2062not immune to federal indictments, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/democrats-push-for-18-year-term-limits-for-scotus-justices\/\" title=\"Democrats Push for 18-Year Term Limits for SCOTUS Justices\">18-year term limits<\/a> \u200bfor justices, and an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-news-justice-alito-targeted-in-a-string-of-reports-raising-ethical-concerns\/\" title=\"Reports raise ethical concerns about Justice Alito in Supreme Court news.\">enforceable ethics code<\/a> for the Court. The amendment,\u200c referred\u2062 to as the &#8220;No One Is Above\u2064 the Law Amendment,&#8221; seeks to overturn a recent Supreme Court\u200c ruling that granted \u2064former presidents immunity for acts taken in office.<\/p>\n<p>However, amending the Constitution requires\u2064 two-thirds approval from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures, a daunting task given the current \u2062political landscape. Experts like Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck emphasize the unlikelihood of\u2064 successfully passing any such amendment, suggesting that Democrats may not achieve the necessary political consensus. Additionally, term limits for justices and\u2062 an enforcement mechanism for an \u2062ethics\u2064 code could also meet with legal challenges, as these are not explicitly \u200doutlined\u2064 in the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>Biden&#8217;s proposals are seen \u2064by some as political maneuvering ahead of upcoming elections, potentially intended to rally support from the left while countering the\u200b conservative-majority Court. To enact these reforms, Mike Davis from the conservative Article III Project asserts that Democrats would need a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ronald-reagans-carterflation-warnings-ring-true-under-bidenflation\/\" title=\"Ronald Reagan\u2019s Carterflation Warnings Ring True Under Bidenflation\">sweeping electoral victory<\/a>, such as a win by Vice President Kamala Harris, which \u2063could enable them \u2062to eliminate the Senate filibuster and\u2064 pursue their judicial agenda.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Biden Supreme Court reforms already on life support, legal experts say<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_1716786\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>President <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/joe-biden\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Joe Biden<\/a>&rsquo;s ambitious three-pronged proposal to reform the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> is not likely to survive past its 15 minutes of fame, legal experts from across the partisan spectrum say.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s all posturing for the election season to try to garner votes amongst the far Left but also to bully the United States Supreme Court into not pursuing its current path of enforcing the Constitution,&rdquo; California RNC National Committeewoman and lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon told the <em>Washington Examiner<\/em>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">President Joe Biden speaks in the Cross Hall of the White House on Monday, July 1, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo\/Jacquelyn Martin)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>On Monday, Biden <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3102415\/biden-lays-out-plan-reform-supreme-court-waning-days-presidency\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>unveiled<\/a> a plan to address recent rulings by the conservative-majority Supreme Court that were disfavored by Democrats, namely the July 1 presidential immunity decision in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3030301\/supreme-court-finds-some-immunity-for-presidents-complicating-trump-indictment\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Trump v. United States\">Trump v. United States<\/a><\/em>. His plan proposes term limits for justices, who currently have lifetime appointments, an enforceable ethics code, and a constitutional amendment to overturn the recent ruling that grants former presidents substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts.<\/p>\n<p>Biden&rsquo;s plans have been reported since at least mid-July, prior to the assassination attempt on former President <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Donald Trump<\/a>. Since then, legal experts from both sides of the political aisle have expressed agreement that basic constitutional rules make Biden&rsquo;s high court plans highly unlikely.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Undoing the Trump immunity decision<\/h2>\n<p>So far, the one planned amendment in the three-part plan requested the &ldquo;No One Is Above the Law Amendment,&rdquo; which aims to clarify that the Constitution does not shield former presidents from federal indictments, trials, convictions, or sentencing. This move would aim to undo the 6-3 ruling that found former presidents have immunity from being prosecuted for official acts while they were in office.<\/p>\n<p>However, to amend the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions &mdash; a process that has succeeded only 27 times in history, with the last amendment ratified in 1992.<\/p>\n<p>Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, questioned in a July 18 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.stevevladeck.com\/p\/bonus-90-president-bidens-scotus\">Substack blog<\/a> why Biden was merely highlighting the recent <em>Trump v. United States <\/em>decision when there are multitudes of other high court decisions Democrats disfavor.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;What about an amendment to overrule&nbsp;<em>Rucho<\/em>&nbsp;and reaffirm that the federal courts&nbsp;can&nbsp;adjudicate severe partisan gerrymandering? Or an amendment to overrule&nbsp;<em>Citizens United<\/em>&nbsp;and allow Congress to meaningfully limit the money in our elections? Or an amendment to overrule&nbsp;<em>Dobbs<\/em>? All of these have the exact same chance of getting two-thirds of the House and Senate to approve them (0.0%),&rdquo; Vladeck wrote.<\/p>\n<p>Given the slim divide between Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the fragmented state governments, passing such an amendment, especially one favored by a single party, is highly improbable.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">18-year term limits for justices<\/h2>\n<p>In addition to term limits for justices, Biden referenced the 22nd Amendment, which imposes a two-term limit on presidents following Franklin D. Roosevelt&rsquo;s four terms. This portion of the plan aims to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/four-ways-democrats-have-demanded-biden-reshape-the-supreme-court-washington-examiner\/\" title=\"Four ways Democrats have demanded Biden reshape the Supreme Court - Washington Examiner\">impose 18-year term limits<\/a> on the justices.<\/p>\n<p>However, imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices through an amendment faces similar improbabilities. Even if congressional Democrats could pass term limits as a law, it would likely be challenged in court and potentially struck down, as term limits for justices are not specified in the Constitution. Some legal experts believe this too would need to be approved via the required 60-vote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3086976\/why-biden-judiciary-reform-plans-dead-on-arrival\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>constitutional amendment process<\/a>, while others, such as Vladeck, suggested that the limits might only apply to &ldquo;future officeholders.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;So, in my view,&nbsp;statutory&nbsp;term limits would be constitutional only if they went into effect starting with the&nbsp;next justice,&rdquo; Vladeck said. &ldquo;That means that, 30-40 years from now, when the last of the current justices leaves the Court, we&rsquo;d have nine justices with term limits&mdash;but not tomorrow.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">An enforceable ethics code<\/h2>\n<p>Biden also called for Congress to pass a law establishing an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court, requiring disclosure of gifts, abstention from political activities, and recusal from cases with conflicts of interest. Such a law would also need to pass Congress and likely secure 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. <\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Vladeck voiced caution over an enforceable ethics code on the nine justices, saying that if anyone other than the justices is given power to enforce a code on the members for violating roles, &ldquo;we&rsquo;d no longer have &lsquo;one Supreme Court,&rsquo; as Article III, Section 1 says we must; we&rsquo;d have two.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Is there any way Biden&rsquo;s plans could be enacted?<\/h2>\n<p>Mike Davis, founder of the conservative Article III Project and a former clerk to Justice Neil Gorsuch, suggested the only way for Democrats to accomplish Biden&rsquo;s plan is for Vice President and presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to win against Trump in the November election.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;If Kamala Harris wins the White House, she will almost certainly carry the House and Senate with her,&rdquo; Davis posted to X.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;They will nuke the Senate&rsquo;s legislative filibuster &mdash; 60 vote threshold &mdash; and pack the Supreme Court with radicals,&rdquo; Davis added.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">If Kamala Harris wins the White House, she will almost certainly carry the House and Senate with her.<\/p>\n<p>They will nuke the Senate&#8217;s legislative filibuster&ndash;60 vote threshold&ndash;and pack the Supreme Court with radicals.<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/brianefallon?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">@BrianEFallon<\/a>, Kamala&#8217;s top aide, has pushed this for years. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/LvqCti9Qxp\">https:\/\/t.co\/LvqCti9Qxp<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&mdash; &#127482;&#127480; Mike Davis &#127482;&#127480; (@mrddmia) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/mrddmia\/status\/1818008810507608380?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">July 29, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script data-cfasync=\"false\" src=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/cdn-cgi\/scripts\/5c5dd728\/cloudflare-static\/email-decode.min.js\"><\/script><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script> <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<p>For now, given that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has not brought a similar Democratic bill to the floor, meeting the 60-vote threshold in a divided Congress appears unlikely.<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Washington Examiner <\/em>contacted Schumer for a comment.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, other judiciary advocates, such as Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, renewed concerns that Biden&rsquo;s plans merely aim to &ldquo;subvert the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Term limits are simply court-packing by another name,&rdquo; Shackelford said, adding that if Biden&rsquo;s plans were somehow successful, &ldquo;the judiciary will no longer be a safeguard of our civil liberties but will instead be little more than a political tool used to crush the freedom of Americans.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p> <script>!function(){var g=window;g.googletag=g.googletag||{},g.googletag.cmd=g.googletag.cmd||[],g.googletag.cmd.push(function(){g.googletag.pubads().setTargeting(\"has-featured-video\",\"true\")})}();<\/script><script>var _bp=_bp||[];_bp.push({\"div\":\"Brid_1716786\",\"obj\":{\"id\":\"27789\",\"width\":\"1280\",\"height\":\"720\",\"stickyDirection\":\"below\",\"video\":\"1716786\"}});<\/script><script defer src=\"https:\/\/services.brid.tv\/player\/build\/brid.min.js\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal experts from various political backgrounds believe that President Joe Biden&#8217;s bold three-part plan to reform the Supreme Court is unlikely to endure beyond its initial attention. Harmeet K. Dhillon, a California RNC National Committeewoman and attorney, described it as mere posturing aimed at appealing to the far Left and pressuring the Supreme Court not to continue its current constitutional enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>On July 1, 2024, Biden announced his strategy in response to recent conservative-majority Supreme Court rulings that Democrats oppose, particularly regarding presidential immunity in Trump v. United States. His proposal includes imposing term limits on justices\u2014who currently serve for life\u2014establishing an enforceable ethics code, and introducing a constitutional amendment intended to reverse the ruling that grants former presidents significant immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office.<\/p>\n<p>Since mid-July, following an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, legal analysts across the political spectrum have concurred that fundamental constitutional principles make Biden&#8217;s proposals highly improbable. The proposed &#8220;No One Is Above the Law Amendment&#8221; seeks to clarify that former presidents are not immune from federal charges or trials; however, amending the Constitution requires approval from two-thirds of both congressional chambers and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures\u2014a process historically successful only 27 times since 1789.<\/p>\n<p>Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck questioned why Biden focused solely on overturning Trump&#8217;s ruling when there are numerous other unfavorable decisions by the court. He pointed out that amendments addressing issues like partisan gerrymandering or campaign finance would face similar challenges in gaining legislative support.<\/p>\n<p>Biden also suggested implementing 18-year term limits for justices based on precedents set by presidential term limits under the 22nd Amendment. However, achieving this through legislation would likely encounter legal challenges since such limits are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Biden called for Congress to create an enforceable ethics code requiring justices to disclose gifts and recuse themselves from conflicts of interest\u2014a measure needing substantial bipartisan support in Congress due to potential filibuster hurdles.<\/p>\n<p>Mike Davis of the conservative Article III Project indicated that Democrats might only realize these reforms if Vice President Kamala Harris wins against Trump in upcoming elections; he believes this could lead her party to eliminate Senate filibusters and reshape court composition significantly.<\/p>\n<p>Currently, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer yet to introduce related Democratic legislation amid a divided Congress, passing any reforms appears unlikely. Critics like Kelly Shackelford argue that these proposals aim merely at undermining Supreme Court legitimacy rather than safeguarding civil liberties<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2315727,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/AP24184012822003-1.webp","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[3620,34514,5894,36590,32076],"class_list":["post-2315726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-biden","tag-legal-experts","tag-politics","tag-supreme-court-reforms","tag-washington-examiner"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/AP24184012822003-1.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2315726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2315726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2315726\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315727"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2315726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2315726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2315726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}