The Associated Press (“AP News”) reports that President Joe Biden is unveiling a proposal for significant changes at the U.S. Supreme Court, calling on Congress to establish term limits, establish an ethics code, and to pass a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling that determined former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
Approval of the proposals is unlikely, however, considering that the U.S. General Election is only 99 days away.
President Biden wants Congress to eliminate lifetime appointments and to establish a system in which the sitting president appoints a new justice every two years for a term of 18 years. He also wants Congress to enforce a code of ethics requiring justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and to recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest.
The AP News article may be read in full HERE.
My brothers and sisters, the reason the U.S. Supreme Court justices are currently appointed for life is to AVOID political interference in the interpretation of the Constitution and to ASSURE continuity in matters of federal law.
The Biden administration’s purpose in establishing a formal code of ethics for the court’s justices, seemingly, is to weaken the court by putting its justices and day-to-day operations under the oversight of the Legislative Branch – which is in-and-of-itself a breach of the constitutionally-established separation of powers between the Administrative, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the federal government.
This writer finds it very interesting and concerning that the justification for a formal code of ethics administered by Congress includes a prohibition on “public political activity” and a requirement for recusal when the justices or their spouses have “financial or other conflicts of interest.”
First, virtually all of the issues before the court are political, so interpreting when a violation of the ‘public political activity’ requirement has occurred would be subjective and would, yet again, enhance the power of the Legislative Branch over the Judicial Branch.
Second, the interpretation of what actions would constitute a sufficient financial interest to invoke enforcement by Congress is itself subject to political party influence.
Third, Congress would, apparently, be the interpreter and decider regarding what acts constitute “other conflicts of interest.” This could result in the U.S. Supreme Court being asked to determine if a congressional action against the court was constitutional. Wouldn’t this scenario also constitute a conflict of interest?
Fourth, seeking to overturn the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s determination that former U.S. presidents have broad immunity from prosecution through Congressional action falls right in line with the above concerns. Either the court is the ultimate or final arbiter of the Constitution, or it is not. This writer strongly concurs with the court’s immunity decision, as allowing former presidents to be sued and potentially impoverished or imprisoned over political decisions made (at the time) for the well being of the nation would be a divisive and dangerous fool’s errand.
Please understand that I’m not in support of runaway control or power for any of the constitutionally-defined three branches of the U.S. federal government; however, it seems inescapable that these proposals by the Biden administration are being rushed and emphasized by a ‘lame duck’ executive for ‘legacy enhancing’ purposes and may well result in further division within our society and the potential harm done by weakening the uniquely independent nature of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The fact that liberal-minded persons currently dislike the rulings of a conservative court are no different than conservative-minded persons disliking the rulings of past liberal courts – such as with the Roe v. Wade decision.
Revamping and reducing the autonomy of the U.S. Supreme Court to meet ongoing political party goals and politicians’ political legacies is not the answer. Slow down! If such changes need to come, they must be debated at length and established very carefully and in a bipartisan manner, with the justification for such action clearly established within the congressional record. Establishment of constitutional amendments is a most serious matter, not to be rushed or unduly affected by partisan politics.
Godly wisdom and patience is necessary in these matters!
Let’s remember the wisdom found in the bible:
Proverbs 2:6 (Amplified Bible)
“For the Lord gives [skillful and godly] wisdom; [f]rom His mouth come knowledge and understanding.”
Proverbs 13:10 (Amplified Bible)
“Through pride and presumption come nothing but strife, [b]ut [skillful and godly] wisdom is with those who welcome [well-advised] counsel.”
