President Biden’s call for Supreme Court reform has ignited a fierce debate across the United States. As discussions about the structure and function of the nation’s highest court intensify, the Biden administration’s proposals have become a focal point of political discourse. This renewed focus on the Supreme Court has brought attention to long-standing issues surrounding the institution’s role in American democracy.
The proposed reforms encompass a range of changes, from implementing term limits for justices to establishing an ethics code. These ideas aim to address concerns about the court’s impartiality and its ability to reflect the evolving values of society. As the debate unfolds, stakeholders from various political backgrounds are weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of such reforms. This article will explore the historical context of Supreme Court reforms, analyze Biden’s term limit proposal, delve into the ethics code debate, and consider the path forward for court reform in the United States.
Historical Context of Supreme Court Reforms
Previous Reform Attempts
The history of Supreme Court reforms in the United States has been marked by significant attempts to reshape the institution. One of the most notable efforts occurred on February 5, 1937, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced a plan to expand the Supreme Court. This proposal, known as the “court-packing plan,” aimed to add justices to gain favorable votes for New Deal legislation. However, FDR’s attempt was short-lived and ultimately defeated by a combination of factors, including opposition from his own party members and a strategic response from Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
Changing Role of the Court
The Supreme Court’s role has evolved significantly since its establishment. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a Supreme Court with six justices and established the lower federal court system. Over time, the number of seats on the Court fluctuated, reaching a high of ten before settling at nine shortly after the Civil War. The Court’s most well-known power, judicial review, was not explicitly stated in the Constitution but was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). This decision affirmed the Court’s authority to declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional, fundamentally shaping its role in the American system of government.
Public Trust Over Time
Public perception of the Supreme Court has undergone significant changes, particularly in recent years. According to a Pew Research Center survey, fewer than half of Americans (44%) now express a favorable opinion of the Court, while a narrow majority (54%) have an unfavorable view. This marks the first time in polling dating back to 1987 that public views of the Supreme Court are significantly more negative than positive. The Court’s favorable rating has declined 26 percentage points since 2020. These shifts in public opinion have been influenced by high-profile rulings on issues such as affirmative action, LGBTQ rights, and student loans.
Partisan divides in perceptions of the Court have also widened. Just 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Supreme Court favorably, compared to 68% of Republicans. This stark contrast reflects the changing ideological landscape and the Court’s perceived role in shaping national policies.
Analyzing Biden’s Term Limit Proposal
President Biden’s proposal to implement term limits for Supreme Court justices has sparked a significant debate about the future of the nation’s highest court. This reform aims to address concerns about the court’s structure and function in modern America.
Benefits of Regular Turnover
One of the primary arguments in favor of term limits is the potential for regular turnover on the bench. Under the proposed system, justices would serve 18-year terms, with each president allowed to make two appointments during a four-year term. This approach would ensure that every president has an equal impact on the Court’s composition, potentially creating more opportunities to appoint justices that reflect changing demographics and societal sentiments.
Proponents argue that regular appointments could make the confirmation process less political. With the understanding that winning the presidency comes with the appointment of two justices, there would be less intense pressure on each individual pick. This regularity might help the court better reflect the broader public and potentially increase its diversity.
Concerns About Politicization
Critics of term limits raise concerns about increased politicization and instability in the Court’s jurisprudence. Some argue that tying two Supreme Court seats to every presidential cycle could actually heighten political scrutiny during elections and judicial confirmations. There are worries that this system could lead to abrupt ideological shifts on the highest court, potentially damaging the common law system.
Another concern is the potential for justices nearing the end of their terms to cater their decisions to their next position. However, supporters contend that these objections do not outweigh the potential benefits of term limits.
Comparison to Other Democracies
When examining Biden’s proposal, it’s instructive to compare it to systems in other democracies. Many countries have implemented term limits or mandatory retirement ages for their high court justices. For instance, Germany has two high courts with 16 high court judges, reducing the impact of a single “swing” judge. Canada has unique features that divert political heat from its supreme court, such as the ability for Parliament or provincial legislatures to pass legislation overriding a supreme court decision, subject to reapproval every five years.
These examples demonstrate alternative approaches to managing the tenure and influence of high court justices, providing valuable context for evaluating Biden’s proposed reforms.
The Ethics Code Debate
The Supreme Court’s recent adoption of a formal code of ethics has sparked intense debate about its effectiveness and implications for judicial integrity. This development comes after years of criticism and calls for reform, particularly in light of controversies involving some justices.
Current Ethical Guidelines
Until recently, the Supreme Court operated without a formal code of ethics, relying instead on what Chief Justice John Roberts described as “common law ethics rules“. This lack of a codified standard led to increased scrutiny, especially when justices’ conduct or potential conflicts of interest raised questions about their independence and impartiality. The newly adopted code specifies that justices should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid impropriety and its appearance, perform duties fairly and impartially, engage in appropriate extrajudicial activities, and refrain from political activity.
Proposed Changes
The ethics code announced by the Court largely mirrors existing rules for lower court judges, with some specific provisions for the Supreme Court. Critics argue that these guidelines are vague, broadly stating that justices should avoid actions where their impartiality might be questioned and limit political activities, without clearly defining what those actions might be. Some advocates and scholars have proposed more robust enforcement mechanisms and clearer standards for recusal and financial disclosures.
Enforcement Mechanisms
A key point of contention in the ethics debate is the lack of a strong enforcement mechanism. The current code primarily relies on self-enforcement by the justices, without provision for oversight by lower-court judges or an independent monitor. This approach has been criticized for doing little to address the deficit in public confidence, as many do not trust the Supreme Court to effectively police its own behavior. Senator Durbin and others have called for an enforceable code of conduct, arguing that the current system falls short of the ethical standards that bind other federal judges. Justice Elena Kagan has voiced support for adding an enforcement mechanism, though questions remain about how it might be implemented and who would oversee it.
Conclusion: The Path Forward for Court Reform
The debate surrounding Biden’s Supreme Court reform proposals has shed light on the complex challenges facing the nation’s highest court. From term limits to ethics codes, these proposed changes aim to address concerns about the court’s impartiality and its ability to reflect societal values. The discussions have highlighted the delicate balance between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring accountability, sparking a nationwide conversation about the role of the Supreme Court in modern America.
As the dialog continues, it’s clear that any reforms will require careful consideration and broad consensus to implement effectively. The path forward involves weighing the potential benefits of regular turnover and clearer ethical guidelines against the risks of increased politicization and instability. Ultimately, the goal is to strengthen public trust in the Supreme Court while preserving its crucial role in the American system of government. The ongoing debate serves as a reminder of the importance of adapting institutions to meet the evolving needs of society.
FAQs
What reforms is President Biden proposing for the Supreme Court?
Last month, during a visit to Texas, President Biden unveiled a series of proposed reforms for the Supreme Court. These reforms include implementing mandatory ethical standards for the justices and establishing term limits.
What types of cases does the Supreme Court handle?
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction covers a variety of cases, such as those involving the United States government, treaties, and admiralty cases, which include disputes about ships on the high seas and navigable waterways.
Do term limits for Supreme Court justices require changes to the Constitution?
According to Joanna R. Lampe, a legislative attorney, imposing term or age limits on Supreme Court justices would likely necessitate a constitutional amendment. This is because Article III of the Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,” implying lifetime appointments unless altered by constitutional amendment.
In what ways does the Supreme Court influence changes in government?
The Supreme Court has a significant impact on governmental change primarily through its rulings on constitutional issues. Such rulings are almost final and can only be overturned by a new ruling from the Court itself or through a constitutional amendment, which is a rare occurrence. However, when the Court interprets a statute, it leaves room for new legislative actions to address or modify the interpretation.