Biden seriously considers Supreme Court term limits, Immunity Clause, Ethics codes.

Pauls' Revere

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
11,347
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-seriously-considering-proposals-supreme-231337951.html

It would mark a major shift for Biden, the former head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court, though since taking office he has been increasingly vocal about his belief that the court is abandoning mainstream constitutional interpretation. The details were first reported by The Washington Post.

Any changes would require congressional approval, which would be unlikely in a divided Congress. But with Republican nominee Donald Trump bragging about putting the three justices on the high court who are now part of the conservative majority, Biden's call for major changes could help animate his voters.

Biden is also considering calling for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the broad immunity for presidents granted by the court in its most recent term, after Donald Trump claimed he was immune from prosecution for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters violently descended on the U.S. Capitol.

The people were not authorized to speak publicly about proposals that have not been finalized and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
 
Not to mention that term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

Yep. Commentators on CNN last night didn't even seem to know that. They said Congress wouldn't go along with it.

Nothing but desperation and posturing. Biden is a complete and total idiot.
 
He can consider all he wants. He doesn't have the power to do anything of the sort.
 
From Biden's perspective, if he's really seriously considering these things, why not just increase the number of justices? That wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. There would be resistance to it, and maybe some political blowback, but not any more than with those other options. And it would be more impactful immediately.
 
Congress is not necessary. 2/3 State legislatures can propose an amendment via convention.

True, but that's never happened nor is it likely. Article VI says that the convention is to be called "for proposing Amendments". No telling what kind of crazy amendments might be proposed (e.g., amending the 2d to allow for gun controls or amending the first to restrict so-called hate speech).

An article from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity has pointed out the unanswered questions and risks associated with such a convention. https://ronpaulinstitute.org/a-new-constitutional-convention/ Others, such as the Cato Institute, oppose the idea. https://www.cato.org/commentary/article-v-constitutional-convention-wrong-idea-wrong-time
 
Back
Top