President also says presidential immunity for crimes should be removed and ethics rules for justices should be stricter

Joe Biden has called for a series of reforms to the US Supreme Court, including the introduction of term limits for justices and a constitutional amendment to remove immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.

In an op-ed published on Monday morning, the president said justices should be limited to a maximum of 18 years’ service on the court rather than the current lifetime appointment, and also said ethics rules should be strengthened to regulate justices’ behavior.

The call for reform comes after the supreme court ruled in early July that former presidents have some degree of immunity from prosecution, a decision that served as a major victory for Donald Trump amid his legal travails.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden wrote.

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, so the lifetime appointment thing is true right now and it turns out enables corruption. Perhaps the original justifications behind lifetime appointments were just, in fact, bad?

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      More that something like corruption is impossible to completely prevent. So you just try to make it harder by reducing incentives. We can’t get to “perfect” in a world with humans in it, but “better” is a realistically attainable achievement.

      • grte@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Okay, but it’s not being prevented at all. The current system incentivizes corruption because, clearly, it is practically impossible to do anything about justices who have succumbed to that corruption. So within the context of an environment where billionaires can dump limitless money on a justice and the constituents of that justice can do nothing at all to recall them or even really reprimand them in any way, how is that not asking for corruption to happen?

        • Boozilla@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well said. There’s a strong tendency for people to revere tradition and the constitution a little too much. They forget that our democracy is old (as far as modern democracies go). The constitution was set up by a bunch of wealthy landowners (and some of them were slaveholders). It’s a collection of pretty bad compromises that had to be amended 27 times…and now is practically impossible to amend.

          Supreme Court Justice is a very important and respectable position, but there’s nine of them (for now) because one person can’t be trusted with too much power. I think it should be limited even further. We give them too much veneration and power under the current system. Treating these people as infallible demigods is what got us into this mess to begin with.

        • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Biden’s proposals also includes an enforceable code of ethics to address corruption on the bench. And as Carrolade mentions, Congress can impeach and remove judges.

          • grte@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Biden’s proposals also includes an enforceable code of ethics to address corruption on the bench.

            From the article:

            The president also called for stricter, enforceable rules on conduct which would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial interest.

            If they aren’t being removed and imprisoned for the kind of activity we see from, say, justice Thomas then the code of ethics isn’t strict enough.

            and as Carrolade mentions, Congress can impeach and remove judges.

            How many times has that happened in history? If the standard is set such that enforcement is practically impossible to reach, then the rules supposedly being enforced practically don’t exist.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          There actually is a method provided for justice removal, it just takes Congress, which also features corruption unfortunately. Also, just because there is some corruption evident does not mean it is not being prevented at all. Are all 9 corrupt? That would eventually happen if it was not prevented at all.

          Importantly though, short term limits would also not prevent corruption, and would probably increase it, as Justices would become much more interested in joining businesses and lobbying organizations after their tenures are up. Hence, a middle ground is probably smarter.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the justification is very good, but the actual implementation came with unforeseen consequences. Making the terms much shorter would make the court more like a second legislature, which defeats much of the original purpose. Having18-year terms is a good compromise.

      I’d also like to have spelled-out ethics requirements and a lower bar for impeachment, but OTOH I don’t think either of those things would have prevented the current mess, because the rely on the Senate to act in good faith, and we know Republicans will never vote to impeach one of their own judges not matter how corrupt they may be.