https://sputnikglobe.com/20240730/bidens-us-supreme-court-reform-plan-just-red-meat-rhetoric-to-feed-his-political-base-1119569772.html
Biden's US Supreme Court Reform Plan Just 'Red Meat' Rhetoric to Feed His Political Base
Biden's US Supreme Court Reform Plan Just 'Red Meat' Rhetoric to Feed His Political Base
Sputnik International
President Joe Biden's new plan to limit the powers of the US Supreme Court that he announced on Monday has no hope whatsoever of being implemented and enforced, US constitutional experts told Sputnik.
2024-07-30T20:39+0000
2024-07-30T20:39+0000
2024-07-30T20:38+0000
analysis
us
joe biden
dan lazare
francis boyle
us supreme court
democratic party
constitutional amendments
constitutional changes
constitutional crisis
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e5/01/1c/1081900755_0:160:3073:1888_1920x0_80_0_0_0c4e94a631ffa217ac20b3fb41a918da.jpg
In a speech at the Lyndon B. Johnson Memorial Library in Austin on Monday, Biden announced his determination to push through a constitutional amendment that would lift the immunity from prosecution that former presidents enjoyed after leaving the White House. The immunity would still apply to any acts they carried out while in office but would not extend to their previous activities while campaigning for the White House. Biden has opposed in the past any constitutional measures to limit the powers of the Supreme Court or change its composition. However, the president changed his position and made his new proposal just a week after announcing that he would not run for reelection in November. Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, dismissed the measure as an empty political ploy to impress Biden's core constituents in the Democratic Party. Biden's so-called reforms would get nowhere under the current political conditions and if Biden and the Democrats were serious about reforming the Supreme Court they would announce a counter-packing campaign to increase the number of justices on the bench by six. Such a move is needed to counteract the six members of the Federalist Society who were put onto the Supreme Court by Republican presidents, Boyle said. Those justices had deliberately been appointed by presidents "acting in cahoots with the Federalist Society in order to pack the court their way, which they have succeeded in doing," he said. Boyle recalled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his successful plan to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 by increasing its members by up to six. Roosevelt made that proposal "in order to circumvent a reactionary Republican Supreme Court [that was] striking down his New Deal Legislation designed to deal with the Great Depression," he said. Although the measure itself was defeated, Roosevelt won his battle in the end - he put the fear of God into the Supreme Court and got results, but Biden and today’s Democrats are no Roosevelt, he said. Biden's Proposal Has No ChanceUS constitutional historian and political commentator Dan Lazare agreed that Biden's new proposal did not have a chance of being implemented. "Biden's op-ed [making the case for his proposed reform in the US media] is pure unadulterated nonsense," Lazare said. Biden was calling for three Supreme Court reforms - a measure striking down presidential immunity, a second imposing term limits and a third imposing a code of ethics, Lazare said. However, the first two would require a constitutional amendment, while the third probably would as well since the Supreme Court justices are all but certain to strike down any such bill on the grounds that it constitutes a flagrant violation of separation of powers, he said. The only way around an adverse Supreme Court ruling is a constitutional amendment; Congress and the states would probably have to go this route in this regard as well, Lazare said. "Biden should know that while you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can't fool all of the people all the time, especially on a topic as important as this," Lazare said.The two-thirds rule in Article 5 of the US Constitution says Congress must approve any proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, while the second means three-fourths (i.e., 38) of the states must assent as well. "Bad as the first one is, the second is an absolute killer since it means that 13 states representing as little as 4.4% of the population can veto any effort at constitutional reform, not just for a year or a decade, but forever," he said. This explained why the United States has not seen a constitutional amendment since 1971 and why, given Washington's hyper-polarized atmosphere, it is not likely to see another for the next half-century as well, per Lazare. As such, the chances of anything similar happening again therefore are nil. "The Supreme Court is another Washington institution that is broken beyond repair, yet is unfixable under anything resembling present circumstances," Lazare added.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240701/us-supreme-court-says-trump-immune-from-prosecution-for-official-acts-1119208940.html
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240724/americans-no-longer-trust-the-establishment-as-biden-remains-greatest-domestic-threat-to-us-1119486269.html
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240724/same-as-the-old-boss-harris-expected-to-continue-neoconservative-foreign-policy-1119479786.html
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
2024
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
joe biden supreme court, us supreme court reforms,
joe biden supreme court, us supreme court reforms,
Biden's US Supreme Court Reform Plan Just 'Red Meat' Rhetoric to Feed His Political Base
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - President Joe Biden's new plan to limit the powers of the US Supreme Court has no hope whatsoever of being implemented and enforced, US constitutional experts told Sputnik.
In a speech at the Lyndon B. Johnson Memorial Library in Austin on Monday, Biden announced his determination to push through a constitutional amendment that would lift the immunity from prosecution that former presidents enjoyed after leaving the White House.
The immunity would still apply to any acts they carried out while in office but would not extend to their previous activities while campaigning for the White House.
Biden has opposed in the past any constitutional measures to limit the powers of the Supreme Court or change its composition. However, the president changed his position and made his new proposal just a week after announcing that he would not run for reelection in November.
Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, dismissed the measure as an empty political ploy to impress Biden's core constituents in the Democratic Party.
"This is just 'red meat' that Biden is tossing out in order to placate the base of the Democratic Party during this election cycle and he knows it," Boyle said.
Biden's so-called reforms would get nowhere under the current political conditions and if Biden and the Democrats were serious about reforming the Supreme Court they would announce a counter-packing campaign to increase the number of justices on the bench by six.
Such a move is needed to counteract the six members of the Federalist Society who were put onto the Supreme Court by Republican presidents, Boyle said.
Those justices had deliberately been appointed by presidents "acting in cahoots with the Federalist Society in order to pack the court their way, which they have succeeded in doing," he said.
Boyle recalled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his successful plan to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 by increasing its members by up to six.
Roosevelt made that proposal "in order to circumvent a reactionary Republican Supreme Court [that was] striking down his New Deal Legislation designed to deal with the Great Depression," he said.
Although the measure itself was defeated, Roosevelt won his battle in the end - he put the fear of God into the Supreme Court and got results, but Biden and today’s Democrats are no Roosevelt, he said.
Biden's Proposal Has No Chance
US constitutional historian and political commentator Dan Lazare agreed that Biden's new proposal did not have a chance of being implemented.
"Biden's op-ed [making the case for his proposed reform in the US media] is pure unadulterated nonsense," Lazare said.
Biden was calling for three Supreme Court reforms - a measure striking down presidential immunity, a second imposing term limits and a third imposing a code of ethics, Lazare said.
However, the first two would require a constitutional amendment, while the third probably would as well since the Supreme Court justices are all but certain to strike down any such bill on the grounds that it constitutes a flagrant violation of separation of powers, he said.
The only way around an adverse Supreme Court ruling is a constitutional amendment; Congress and the states would probably have to go this route in this regard as well, Lazare said.
"Yet, changing the Constitution is not just difficult, but flat-out impossible and that is why it can be assessed that Biden indulged in an empty bluff which would fool and impress no one," he said.
"Biden should know that while you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can't fool all of the people all the time, especially on a topic as important as this," Lazare said.
"Biden's latest bonehead move is further proof of why government in this country doesn't work - and why it never will."
The two-thirds rule in Article 5 of the US Constitution says Congress must approve any proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, while the second means three-fourths (i.e., 38) of the states must assent as well.
"Bad as the first one is, the second is an absolute killer since it means that 13 states representing as little as 4.4% of the population can veto any effort at constitutional reform, not just for a year or a decade, but forever," he said.
This explained why the United States has not seen a constitutional amendment since 1971 and why, given Washington's hyper-polarized atmosphere, it is not likely to see another for the next half-century as well, per Lazare. As such, the chances of anything similar happening again therefore are nil.
"The Supreme Court is another Washington institution that is broken beyond repair, yet is unfixable under anything resembling present circumstances," Lazare added.
