The SCOTUS Chronicles

[The Grand Nudger]

Guess that means he's immune from prosecution for crimes committed as a private citizen, too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Monday proposed major changes for the U.S. Supreme Court: an enforceable code of ethics, term limits for justices and a constitutional amendment that would limit the justices’ recent decision on presidential immunity.

[...]

Here’s a look at how the ideas, how they might work, and the possible stumbling blocks:

How would justices’ terms be limited?

[..]

Biden’s proposal would limit justices to 18-year terms, a system that he says would make nominations more predictable, less arbitrary, and reduce the chances that a single president could shape the court for generations to come.

There’s a big problem: The Constitution gives all federal judges lifetime tenure, unless they resign, retire or are removed.

[...]

How would a code of ethics be enforced?

The Supreme Court didn’t have a formal code of ethics until last year, when the justices adopted one in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, like Clarence Thomas.

It still lacks a means of enforcement — something Biden says is “common sense.” Members of Congress, for example, generally can’t accept gifts worth more than $50.

Anyone can file complaints against other federal judges, who are subject to censure and reprimand. Justice Elena Kagan voiced support for adding an enforcement mechanism to the Supreme Court ethical code in a public appearance last week.

Still, making the high court’s ethical code enforceable raises thorny questions about how it might be enforced, and by whom.

[...]

What about presidential immunity?

Biden is also calling for a constitutional amendment limiting the Supreme Court’s recent decision giving former president Donald Trump — and all other presidents — broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

[...]

It wouldn’t be the first time - the Constitution has been amended about five times to in US history to overturn a Supreme Court decision, Geyh said.

But constitutional amendments have even higher hurdles than new laws. The proposal must get support from two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court...722619cc4d

And Mitch McConnell has the gall to say that the SCOTUS is under attack:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said “the Supreme Court is under attack” in a speech on the Senate floor Monday, calling for Biden and Harris to accept rulings from the court instead of responding “with a full schedule attack on the justices who ruled against them.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/politics/....%E2%80%9D

Biden's not attacking the court; he's defending what's left of our democracy. Understanding that no amendments will pass, it's good to open this discussion. You can tell who is against democratic values like equal treatment under the law or attacking graft by seeing who's wringing their hands.

[Jackalope]

I look forward to reading McConnell's obituary.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I look forward to reading McConnell's obituary.

He's been a malignant dwarf on the American political stage for the last 15 years, at the very least. I can't think of anything positive he's done for the country.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Justice Neil Gorsuch had a plain message when asked about President Biden’s new Supreme Court reform proposal: “Be careful.”

“You’re not going to be surprised that I’m not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don’t think that would be helpful,” Gorsuch began when asked about the proposal on “Fox News Sunday.”

But the conservative justice then indicated he had “one thought to add,” going on to stress the importance of an independent judiciary.

“And so, I just say, be careful,” Gorsuch told host Shannon Bream.

Biden announced the three-pronged proposal last week, calling for 18-year term limits for the justices, an enforceable code of ethics and a constitutional amendment to counteract the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity decision.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk...proposals/

He should be advising his colleagues to be careful.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure a federal employee in the law bidness ought to be telling us there's too much law. We might be inclined to agree, starting with him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A couple of items here. I found this first one truly surprising:

Most Republicans support the policy proposals in President Biden’s plan to reform the Supreme Court, according to a new USA Today/Ipsos poll.

Biden outlined a three-pronged approach to reforming the high court in a speech last month, calling for a binding code of conduct, 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a Constitutional amendment declaring no one — not even the president — is above the law.

The latest poll shows 70 percent of Republicans support a binding code of conduct for justices that would require disclosure of gifts, prohibit involvement in political activity, and mandate recusal from cases involving conflicts of interest for themselves or their spouses.

Slimmer majorities of Republicans support the constitutional amendment proposal (54 percent) and the term limits proposal (51 percent).

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...t-reforms/

This one, however, is unsurprising:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s favorability with the public has cratered in the past two years, amid a wave of reporting about his financial disclosures and, particularly, gifts from wealthy donors, a USA Today/Ipsos poll published Monday revealed.

Thomas’s net favorability sits in the new survey at negative 15 percentage points — 27 percent favorable to 42 percent unfavorable — down 24 points from a net positive of 9 points in April 2022.

The decline was driven largely by Democrats’ and independents’ souring views.

In 2022, Thomas’s net favorability among Democrats was negative 19 percentage points, but it has plummeted to negative 63 percentage points: only 9 percent favorable to 72 percent unfavorable.

Among independents, Thomas’s net favorability dropped from being a positive 6 percentage points to negative 14 points.

The justice saw a 10-point dip in support from Republicans as well, from a net favorability of positive 43 points two years ago to positive 33 points this month.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...orability/

[Thumpalumpacus]

The pernicious myth that Chief Justice John Roberts is a moderate conservative may finally be put to rest. Over the weekend, the Times reported that behind the scenes, Roberts quickly took hardline stances in cases related to the January 6 insurrection, pushing for outcomes most favorable to Donald Trump. Some court-watchers’ suspicions that Roberts was a Never-Trump Republican were, as it turns out, greatly exaggerated.

Perhaps less surprising than the revelations in the reporting were the Times’s sources inside the famously opaque Court: “the justices’ private memos, documentation of proceedings and interviews with court insiders, both conservative and liberal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because deliberations are supposed to be kept secret.”

Conservative commentators, as they usually do, raced to condemn not the embarrassing substance but the tainted process. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called the leak a “betrayal of confidence” that is “damaging to the comity of the Court.” Fox News commentator John Shu mourned violations of the “sacred confidentiality” of the decision-making process: “It’s really scary that yet another norm has been shattered,” he said. And David Harsanyi wrote in the Washington Examiner that whoever leaked the internal documents is “part of a conspiracy to destroy the Supreme Court.”

https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accou...-the-dark/

[Ravenshire]

The pernicious myth that Chief Justice John Roberts is a moderate conservative may finally be put to rest. Over the weekend, the Times reported that behind the scenes, Roberts quickly took hardline stances in cases related to the January 6 insurrection, pushing for outcomes most favorable to Donald Trump. Some court-watchers’ suspicions that Roberts was a Never-Trump Republican were, as it turns out, greatly exaggerated.

Perhaps less surprising than the revelations in the reporting were the Times’s sources inside the famously opaque Court: “the justices’ private memos, documentation of proceedings and interviews with court insiders, both conservative and liberal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because deliberations are supposed to be kept secret.”

Conservative commentators, as they usually do, raced to condemn not the embarrassing substance but the tainted process. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called the leak a “betrayal of confidence” that is “damaging to the comity of the Court.” Fox News commentator John Shu mourned violations of the “sacred confidentiality” of the decision-making process: “It’s really scary that yet another norm has been shattered,” he said. And David Harsanyi wrote in the Washington Examiner that whoever leaked the internal documents is “part of a conspiracy to destroy the Supreme Court.”

https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accou...-the-dark/

Am I alone in the thought that a conspiracy to destroy the current court is not a terrible idea?

[AFTT47]

^ Nope. I concur.