Reforming the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to be a huge issue in this year’s presidential election, and it’s straightforward to see why. With President Joe Biden and others proposing overhauls, a huge question will be how to fix the problems with the nation’s highest court.
A huge number of Americans lost trust in the neutrality of the court following its Decision 2022 which overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling and ushered in political reaction across the country because women couldn’t get abortions — at a time when minors were being raped or women’s health was at risk.
Since then, the court’s opinions have only worsened.
In 2023, ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas had a history of accepting millions of dollars in damages. undisclosed gifts from billionaires who supported the rulings that make this possible harder for the government to regulate donors. Such conduct may sound like bribery, but Thomas and the court majority voted to make it much harder to prosecute public officials for it.
In 2016, a court ruled that then-Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell could host a luncheon at the governor’s mansion so the man who showered him with gifts could hawk of questionable miracle cure to state-supported universities. And in June, a majority ruled that Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder could pay $1 million in taxpayer money for garbage trucks, leave office and then take up $13,000 for “consulting services” from the company that received the order.
Seven in ten Americans said most people’s decisions were influenced by emotions. more ideology than law even before the court’s July ruling that the president wide resistance from accusations for things he or she does in office. The Constitution may have been written right after we overthrew the king, but the July 1 ruling makes the president “king above the law“- said three judges in a separate opinion.
By taking the case and conducting it in this way, the majority prevented former President Donald Trump from being prosecuted on charges of trying to steal the last election before the upcoming one. And Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito refused to recuse themselves, even though Thomas’s wife was a vocal supporter of Trump’s attempted election theft AND the flag flew over Alito’s house in what appeared to be an expression of sympathy for efforts to overthrow the government.
This week, Biden unveiled his reform proposals.
“What is happening now is not normal and undermines public trust in court decisions, including those that affect personal freedoms,” the president said. and op-ed published in the Washington Post. “Now We Stand in the Gap.”
In broad outline, Biden’s proposal would:
- Amend the Constitution to make clear that presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.“I share the belief of our Founding Fathers that the power of the presidency is limited, not absolute,” Biden wrote. “We are a nation of laws—not kings or dictators.”
- Create a system in which presidents nominate a judge every two years and limit the term of office of judges to 18 years.
- An enforceable code of conduct should be created under which judges must disclose gifts received, refrain from public political activities and recuse themselves from participation in cases in which they or their spouses have a conflict of interest.
The question is how Biden will balance these reforms with a host of other pressing issues.
Gabe Roth of the nonpartisan reform group Fix the Court said Biden even has competing priorities when it comes to the judiciary. There are about three dozen nominees to lower federal courts who are awaiting Senate confirmation.
“There aren’t many shopping days before Christmas,” Roth said. “There aren’t many Senate days until Jan. 3, 2025, when another Senate starts. Given the priorities, I wouldn’t blame the White House if it emphasized confirmations in the coming months.
But if Biden decides to make his reforms a priority, it could effectively sell his idea, Roth said.
“He has plenty of time to explain to the American people why judicial reform is necessary and what his vision is for it,” he said.
Roth founded Fix the Court a decade ago and said Biden and many others were delayed to the reform movement.
“Honestly, he should have done this his whole career,” Roth said.
He added: “The core themes of Fix the Court have not changed in the last 10 years. I have always been a supporter of democracy with a compact ‘d’. I grew up in Bush vs. Gore (which handed George W. Bush a landslide election victory.) The idea that the Supreme Court has so much power that it can pick a president… Citizens United (which allows unlimited corporate spending in politics) came out before Fix the Court began. Just the overwhelming power that the court has gained. This is not the beginning of history, the court has continued on a trajectory.”
To curb that power, Roth has his own reform proposals.
One solution is to deprive district court judges of the ability to issue domestic orders.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, has been in the news frequently controversial orders. He lives in Amarillo, Texas, and is the sole judge on his court. Conservative religious advocates often file cases there, assuming they will be treated favorably in Kacsmaryk’s court.
Last year, it rolled back protections for LGBTQ workers put in place by the Biden administration and FDA approval key abortive drug, mifepristone.
Roth said that having that power in one pair of hands gives the Supreme Court even more power because it can decide to do nothing and leave the orders in place — regardless of the harm they cause — and not face the same criticism that it would if it heard the case and issued a similar ruling.
“This is one judge in one district out of 94 districts in a country of 330 million people — one judge in a judiciary of 2,300 judges — saying ‘no’ to whatever the national policy is, whether it’s (Trump’s 2017 decision) or whether it’s not going to be a federal election.” Ban on Muslims or mifepristone or whatever,” Roth said. “The idea that one judge has that much power will make its way to the Supreme Court because the court can say whether a ruling is kosher or not.”
On ethics, Roth said the entire federal judicial ethics code has “private jet” loopholes that need to be closed. Supreme Court Gift Prohibition Act has been introduced in Congress. It would limit judges’ donations to $50 — the same amount as Congress.
His organization advocates for a different solution specifically for Judge Thomas, who has accepted at least $2.4 million worth of donations from parties who sometimes bring cases before the court and often have a financial interest in its decisions.
“I think (Attorney General) Merrick Garland should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Thomas’s donations,” Roth said. “‘Kickbacks’ is a loaded word. But at least it’s clear that Thomas deliberately violated the Ethics in Government Act by omitting these donations from his financial disclosure reports for decades.”
He added: “This is a pattern of willful neglect, and there are consequences under the law. Judges and justices can be fined. There are even criminal penalties. I don’t think we should have criminal penalties because I don’t think we’ve reached the point where Judge Thomas should go to prison. But there are civil penalties that are part of the law — $50,000 per violation — and I think Attorney General Garland should appoint an investigator to determine the extent to which Thomas violated that law.”
