As President of the United States, I firmly believe that we must prevent the abuse of presidential power and restore public faith in our judicial system. Our nation was founded on a fundamental principle: No one is above the law. This applies to everyone, including the President and the justices of the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision on July 1, which grants presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, jeopardizes this principle. This ruling effectively places no limits on presidential actions, relying solely on the self-restraint of the officeholder.

 

If future presidents incite violent mobs to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, as witnessed on January 6, 2021, there may be no legal repercussions. This is just one example of the potential dangers. Additionally, the Court's decisions have overturned long-standing legal precedents, such as Roe v. Wade, and it is currently facing a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving justices have raised serious questions about the Court’s fairness and independence, which are crucial for ensuring equal justice under the law. Undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the Court and conflicts of interest related to the January 6 insurrectionists cast doubt on the Court's impartiality.

 

Having served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and having overseen more Supreme Court nominations than anyone living today, I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers. What is happening now is abnormal and undermines public confidence in the Court's decisions, including those affecting personal freedoms. We are at a critical juncture, and in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions, I am proposing three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the Court and our democracy.

 

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment, the No One Is Above the Law Amendment, which would clarify that there is no immunity for crimes committed by a former president while in office. This aligns with our Founders' belief that presidential power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws, not of kings or dictators.

 

Second, just as we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years, we should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that grants lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would ensure regular changes in the Court’s membership, making the timing of court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. This would reduce the likelihood of any single presidency radically altering the Court’s composition for generations. I support a system where the President appoints a justice every two years to serve 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

 

Third, I am advocating for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The current voluntary ethics code for the Court is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

 

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans, as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals. We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore public faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

 

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.

 

Credit: W.P.  2024-07-30

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information.

Wish him luck but with a Republican majority in congress I fear it’s doomed to fail sad 😞 

The Democrats are attempting to exert influence over the Supreme Court. They believe the Court should simply approve their unwise proposals.

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

Wish him luck but with a Republican majority in congress I fear it’s doomed to fail sad 😞 

This needs to crash and burn. 

This court is biased, corrupt and illegitimate beyond words, comprehension & even imagination. Any objective person...without MAGA orange-colored glasses 🤓 on...can see this crystal clear. 

With the current impasse in Congress it will go nowhere, but who knows next year...

4 hours ago, TedG said:

The Democrats are attempting to exert influence over the Supreme Court. They believe the Court should simply approve their unwise proposals.

For starters, I think accountability would be a good thing? Do you disagree?

Fifty years in politics, and three months before the elections Biden comes up with these brilliant ideas.

A true hero and visionary! 😂😂😂

The US government is based on 3 separate parts: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.  

They are to remain separate.

But now Joe Biden's handlers are upset that the Supreme Court (Judicial) keeps enforcing the Constitution, so they want to weaken the powers of the separate Judiciary arm.

 

The first thing Putin did was weaken the judiciary.

Xi in China weakened the judiciary in China to give himself perpetual rule.

Chavez & Morales weakened the Venezuelan judiciary.

See where I'm going with this?

 

For a person who spent his entire life in the Senate & VP then President - perhaps he should first push term limits for the Senate.

 

4 hours ago, TedG said:

The Democrats are attempting to exert influence over the Supreme Court. They believe the Court should simply approve their unwise proposals.

Counter factual nonsense that could only come from someone who has completely missed or chooses to ignore the reality of rightwing Christian control over the SCOTUS and the bias that has been demonstrated by the courts recent rulings.

 

 

President Biden is expressing a view backed by public opinion:

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/21/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-fall-to-historic-low/

46 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

With the current impasse in Congress it will go nowhere, but who knows next year...

President Biden is timing this well.

 

He’s putting reform of the SCOTUS on the ticket for November, it’s an idea with broad public support.

 

 

45 minutes ago, Iron Tongue said:

The US government is based on 3 separate parts: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.  

Legislative - elected but no term limits.  

Judicial - appointed but no term limits.

Executive - elected and term limits.

Not a very fair or balanced system that is open to abuse.

How about all being elected and under term limits for a start?

If anymore proof was needed that Biden is a drooling retard

1 minute ago, animalmagic said:

Legislative - elected but no term limits.  

Judicial - appointed but no term limits.

Executive - elected and term limits.

Not a very fair or balanced system that is open to abuse.

How about all being elected and under term limits for a start?

Nonsense.  

Federal judiciary are set up to be named by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislative.  As written in the Constitution.  And since Federal nominations need to be confirmed by the elected Legislative, it can be considered a representative election.

Been like that for over 200 years, several wars, financial crisis, and even a Civil War without change.  Why now?  Why Joe Biden, who is as competent as my cat (and I don't have a cat).

8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

If anymore proof was needed that Biden is a drooling retard

Because he suggests something that the majority of the public agree with?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because he suggests something that the majority of the public agree with?

If he can go through the process as laid out let him do it. But you know that is simply not the case he just speaks and drools.

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

If he can go through the process as laid out let him do it. But you know that is simply not the case he just speaks and drools.

Refer my comment above about the timing of this announcement.

 

A d please, less of the projection.

5 hours ago, TedG said:

The Democrats are attempting to exert influence over the Supreme Court. They believe the Court should simply approve their unwise proposals.

Quite the reverse by the looks of it - they are looking to hold it more accountable than it currently is regardless of whoever is in power. The stacking of SCOTUS by Trump in particular has enabled a biased SCOTUS to upend many sensible laws and who in their right mind wouldn't want a binding code of conduct when we have seen the likes of Clarence Thomas being treated to luxury holidays by his billionaire chums? 

 

It all looks VERY sensible to me and only someone wearing MAGA blinkers would ever disagree. 

30 minutes ago, Iron Tongue said:

Nonsense.  

Federal judiciary are set up to be named by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislative.  As written in the Constitution.  And since Federal nominations need to be confirmed by the elected Legislative, it can be considered a representative election.

Been like that for over 200 years, several wars, financial crisis, and even a Civil War without change.  Why now?  Why Joe Biden, who is as competent as my cat (and I don't have a cat).

I will bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the Constitution and accept that Judiciary can be considered a representative election of sorts.  Please advise why term limits should not apply to ALL branches of Government; the 22nd Amendment considers it necessary for the Executive branch.

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

However

The left has no intention of reforming the court, their only interest is to conform the court given that the left is inherently clinically imbecilic on constitutional law.

Just now, novacova said:

The left has no intention of reforming the court, their only interest is to conform the court given that the left is inherently clinically imbecilic on constitutional law.

So you didn’t read the OP.

Give it a read and let us know what particular parts of President Biden’s proposal you object to and why.

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

This court is biased, corrupt and illegitimate beyond words, comprehension & even imagination. Any objective person...without MAGA orange-colored glasses 🤓 on...can see this crystal clear. 

This is another case of the Dems acting in the here and now. 

His argument is made because Dems that were past there due date were not willing to quit.  If Rbg had resigned when her health started to get bad Barry could have appointed a dem.  Now they have another one that is past prime and should retire but won't.

 

Term limits are not the answer but how about medical mental fitness or 70 years of age 

Doomed to failure.  

 

USA constitutional amendments require 2/3s of each house of Congress to ratify and then 75% of individual states to ratify.  

53 minutes ago, Iron Tongue said:

Nonsense.  

Federal judiciary are set up to be named by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislative.  As written in the Constitution.  And since Federal nominations need to be confirmed by the elected Legislative, it can be considered a representative election.

Been like that for over 200 years, several wars, financial crisis, and even a Civil War without change.  Why now?  Why Joe Biden, who is as competent as my cat (and I don't have a cat).

Are Senators elected for life? If the electorate doesn't approve of what a Senator does, it has a chance every 6 years to vote them out. Does the electorate ever get a guaranteed opportunity to vote a Supreme Court Justice out of office? 

 

"Chief Justice John Roberts, Oct. 3, 1983: “There is much to be said for changing life tenure to a term of years, without possibility of reappointment. The Framers adopted life tenure at a time when people simply did not live as long as they do now. A judge insulated from the normal currents of life for 25 or 30 years was a rarity then, but is becoming commonplace today. Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence. It would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges. Both developments would, in my view, be healthy ones.”

https://fixthecourt.com/termlimits/

The Administration, Congress, and Supreme Court provide checks-and-balances for the American system of governance.

Now the Administration wishes to place its thumb on the scales to modify the judicial checks-and-balances in its favor.

The Democrat Left is seeking to openly "Communize" and "Stalinize" the Republic and turn it into their vision of a Leftist Totalitarian Hell.  I do hope they fail abysmally. 

No need for this proposed change.

Edited July 30, 20241 yr by Thingamabob

13 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

This is another case of the Dems acting in the here and now. 

His argument is made because Dems that were past there due date were not willing to quit.  If Rbg had resigned when her health started to get bad Barry could have appointed a dem.  Now they have another one that is past prime and should retire but won't.

 

Term limits are not the answer but how about medical mental fitness or 70 years of age 

I'm 83. I feel saddened snd victimised by your proposal. I need to lie down for a while to get over it..

3 minutes ago, connda said:

The Administration, Congress, and Supreme Court provide checks-and-balances for the American system of governance.

Now the Administration wishes to place its thumb on the scales to modify the judicial checks-and-balances in its favor.

The Democrat Left is seeking to openly "Communize" and "Stalinize" the Republic and turn it into their vision of a Leftist Totalitarian Hell.  I do hope they fail abysmally. 

Apparently, to your way of thinking, Chief Justice John Robert was, at least once upon a time, a Democratic leftist seeking openly to "Communize" and "Stalinize" the Republic and turn it into their vision of a Leftist Totalitarian Hell."

Here's the quote from this Communist

As now Chief Justice John Roberts once acknowledged while working as a White House attorney, “The Framers adopted life tenure at a time when people simply did not live as long as they do now. A judge insulated from the normal currents of life for twenty-five or thirty years was a rarity then, but is becoming commonplace today. The trend toward lengthening terms also heightens the risk that justices will stay on the Court after their capacity as jurists begins to decline.'

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/supreme-court-term-limits

14 minutes ago, connda said:

Now the Administration wishes to place its thumb on the scales to modify the judicial checks-and-balances in its favor.

Now?