- The Washington Times - Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Conservative legal advocates are warning against President Biden’s reported plans to endorse major institutional changes to the Supreme Court, which was remade with a conservative bent by his predecessor — and 2024 political opponent — former President Donald Trump.

Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, said new reports of Mr. Biden’s plans to back term limits on the justices and impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court would politicize the nation’s highest court, calling the overhaul proposal a “radical attempt by a desperate politician.”

“Transforming the Supreme Court into another partisan body would destroy the independence of the judiciary and threaten the civil liberties of all Americans. Joe Biden once said that changing the structure of the Court was ‘a bonehead idea’ that would ‘put in question … the independence of the … Supreme Court.’ He was right. The last thing we need in this country right now is a Supreme Court coup that would threaten judicial independence and our democratic republic,” Mr. Shackelford said.

Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project and a former clerk to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, took to X, suggesting Mr. Biden was moving to change the court because it is blocking his attempt to use the legal system as a weapon against his campaign rival.

“Biden has repeatedly smeared Trump as a grave threat to America. Biden’s allies have attempted to bankrupt Trump, imprison him for life, throw him off the ballot, and even kill him. Now Biden wants to destroy the Supreme Court, because it is in the way,” Mr. Davis posted on the social media site.

Polling last summer conducted by First Liberty Institute found that 60% of voters surveyed disapproved of changes to the Supreme Court.

The pushback from the right comes as The Washington Post reported Tuesday that in the coming weeks, the president is expected to endorse legislation to end lifetime appointments for the justices and to enforce an ethics code.

Mr. Biden could also push for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate broad immunity for presidents, according to The Post.

The proposals follow the conclusion of the justices’ 2023-2024 term earlier this month, which gave Mr. Trump some major victories — including rebuffing state challenges to eliminating his name from the 2024 ballot and giving him some protection from criminal prosecution as he faces multiple state and federal prosecutions.

The rulings outraged liberals who saw the opinions being issued by a 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court that was cemented by Mr. Trump with his three appointments — Justices Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — during his administration.

Democrats have been critical of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr., too, suggesting they should recuse themselves from cases related to the 2020 election. 

They say the two justices had conflicts of interest, citing the fact that Justice Thomas’ wife attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally when the U.S. Capitol was attacked and that Justice Alito’s wife flew flags outside the couple’s homes sympathetic to the “Stop the Steal” movement challenging Mr. Biden’s  2020 presidential election victory.

Both justices rebuffed the calls to recuse themselves, leading Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, to introduce articles of impeachment against both justices earlier this month.

The Constitution says Supreme Court justices, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” This means a justice may serve for life, subject to removal only by impeachment. The Supreme Court in November also drafted its own ethics code, one that critics dismissed as inadequate and enforced only by the justices themselves.

A spokesperson from the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the president’s reported comments and agenda.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.