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.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    You want it to be long enough to retain some of the advantages of lifetime appointments. It wasn’t originally framed that way just for fun or convenience, it does have importance.

    We also need to make sure they don’t need to go job hunting after their term limit is up, as that would incentivize corruption. They should retain their salary for life.

    edit: Reading another comment in here, perhaps its important to note that the main advantage of the lifetime appointment is it allows Justices to be fearless. They can challenge the most powerful people in the entire country, because for their whole lifetime they need nothing more than their current job, which is guaranteed.

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

      We don’t need “fearless” justices we need justices who respect neutrality and understand that no one is above the law, including them.

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

        If you can think of a good way to guarantee that in a world where people can lie, I’m all ears.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s no meaningful difference for “fearlessness” between a lifetime appointment and a set term. If they were up for a “reelection” of sorts, then that’d be something to worry about.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s about future prospects, assuming that once someone retires from a court position, they may want to do something else with their life asides fully retire. Only by ensuring the court appointment is permanent can you fully address that singular issue.

        Note, I am not saying lifetime appointments are good or necessary, only that this is why they exist. It is not a pointless thing we should just thoughtlessly do away with, without taking these other things into account in some fashion. I think a lifetime salary would be a viable solution personally.

    • 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?

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

      • 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.