[dc]P[/dc]resident Joe Biden’s proposal to reform the U.S. Supreme Court has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding its constitutional implications and the principle of separation of powers. The plan includes three primary elements that represent reforms for two branches of government: imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices, establishing a binding code of conduct, and amending the Constitution to allow presidents to be criminally charged for actions they take while in office, official or not.
The introduction of term limits for Supreme Court justices would fundamentally alter the current system of lifetime appointments, a cornerstone of judicial independence as outlined in Article III of the Constitution. Lifetime appointments were intended to insulate justices from political pressures and ensure a stable, impartial judiciary. Changing this to an 18-year term, as suggested by Biden, would require a constitutional amendment. This process is exceedingly difficult, requiring a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Implementing a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices aims to address ethical concerns and improve transparency. While lower federal judges are subject to such codes, Supreme Court justices currently are not. Introducing this change through legislation might infringe on judicial independence, a critical component of the separation of powers doctrine. The judiciary must remain free from external influences, particularly from the legislative and executive branches, to uphold the checks and balances system that prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful.
The proposed constitutional amendment to ensure no president is above the law addresses significant concerns about presidential accountability. However, this proposal also faces substantial obstacles. Amending the Constitution is a rigorous process designed to ensure that only widely supported changes are enacted. The need for bipartisan support is critical, especially in today’s polarized political environment, where achieving the required consensus is highly improbable.
The principle of separation of powers is designed to ensure that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government operate independently. Each branch has distinct powers and responsibilities to prevent any one branch from usurping too much control. Biden’s proposals, particularly the term limits and binding code of conduct, could be perceived as the executive and legislative branches attempting to exert influence over the judiciary. This encroachment risks undermining the judiciary’s independence, which is essential for maintaining the balance of power.
The political feasibility of enacting these reforms is dubious. The intense partisanship surrounding Supreme Court decisions and presidential conduct further complicates the prospects for bipartisan cooperation necessary to achieve these constitutional changes.
Additionally, it is worth considering whether Congress would voluntarily limit its own terms. Historically, members of Congress have shown little willingness to impose term limits on themselves. The lack of term limits has often been justified by the argument that elections themselves serve as a check on prolonged incumbency. However, this self-interest in maintaining their positions makes it unlikely that Congress would support term limits for the judiciary, as doing so could set a precedent that might eventually apply to their own terms.
While President Biden’s Supreme Court reform proposals are presumably rooted in a desire to enhance accountability and public trust, they face significant constitutional, political, and practical challenges. The separation of powers, a fundamental principle of American democracy, could be compromised if these reforms are perceived as undermining judicial independence. Achieving the required consensus for such profound changes in today’s divided political climate appears highly unlikely, highlighting the complexity of navigating constitutional reforms in the United States.