Biden pushes to reform the nation’s highest court

President Joe Biden’s list of proposed reforms for the nation’s highest court has some constitutional law and ethics experts saying it will never happen.

The reforms have also prompted at least one Superme Court justice to raise concerns publicly about Biden’s proposal, which the president announced July 29.

Justice Neil Gorsuch told Fox News that Biden needs to “be careful.”

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Charles Geyh said the reform proposal wasn’t just about judicial ethics, but also involved partisan gameplay.

Geyh said the proposal serves more as a conversation between the three branches of government than a plan to reform the court.

“Due to the partisanship there are more challenges in the environment to have a conversation between the branches,” Geyh said.

Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reforms

The president’s proposal highlights three key areas of reform.

First, it says there should be no immunity for crimes a former president committed in office.

This follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in July that former President Donald Trump had broad immunity from prosecution for actions he took while in office.

Next, the proposal suggests placing term limits on the justices of 18 years. Currently, the justices serve for life or while in good standing.

Lastly, the proposal suggests Congress pass a binding code of conduct for the court.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Steve Sanders said it’s impossible to approve a constitutional amendment for the reforms proposed by Biden.

“In the divided country we have, that’s a complete non-starter,” Sanders said. “This isn’t the plan. It’s just a messaging document.”

Geyh said the proposal serves more as a conversation between the three branches of government than a plan to reform the court.

“Due to the partisanship there are more challenges in the environment to have a conversation between the branches,” Geyh said.

He said the proposal of term limits is an effort to restrain the justices.

Americans favor Supreme Court conduct code, reforms

Geyh noted that, according to national surveys, Americans are in favor of court reform.

According to a USA TODAY-Ipsos election year poll, 76% of Americans support a binding code of conduct for the court.

A code of conduct had the support of 70% of Republicans, 76% of independents and 89% of Democrats, USA TODAY reported.

The public approval in polls comes amid recent disclosures of some Supreme Court justices failing to report gifts and paid vacations they accepted from private individuals.

After revising his financial disclosure forms, Justice Clarence Thomas reported decades of luxury trips he took that had been paid for by real estate billionaire Harlan Crowe.

ProPublica reported Justice Samuel Alito accepted an Alaska resort vacation from GOP donors in 2008.

The donors have had interests before the court multiple times. Alito did not disclose the trips on his financial disclosure for that year.

Attorney Jim Bopp said the judicial branch is designed specifically to have its independence from the political branches.

“The court can decide cases based upon the law, not public favor, or whether the political branches will approve or have control over them,” Bopp said. “While that doesn’t yield perfect results, it’s more likely to result in adherence to the law.”

Bopp said the court doesn’t always get things right and can overturn precedent they created.

“Members of the Supreme Court are human, and they make mistakes, even when well-motivated,” Bopp said.

He noted how judicial officers have different philosophies that lead them when making decisions.

“(They) have a judicial philosophy that will lend itself to correct decisions. Even then they make mistakes. So there are ways to correct those constitutional amendments, amending statutes, and in the worst case, of course, is impeachment,” Bopp said.

He added that creating an enforceable code of ethics would require a judicial ethics commission that is not made up of the Supreme Court justices, but rather judges of the circuit courts.

“That would give enormous power to people, judges that are actually inferior to members of the Supreme Court and making them superior,” Bopp said.

He said it’s unconstitutional to do that.

Both Sanders and Geyh noted how the Constitution doesn’t specify which federal court the justices serve on for life.

They said the justices could serve on the Supreme Court, then move to a federal circuit court.

“The constitution doesn’t say they serve on the same court indefinitely,” Sanders said. “The only way around this, that I have heard, is you could put somebody on the Supreme Court for a period of years, and then once that period of years is up, they would rotate down to one of the federal lower courts.”•