Join constitutional historians Keith Whittington from Yale and Anthony Michael Kreis from Georgia State as they explore President Biden's ambitious plan to reform the Supreme Court. They dive into term limits for justices, the challenging constitutional landscape, and the nuances of judicial ethics. The duo discusses the historical relationship between politics and the judiciary and how growing polarization impacts public perceptions of the court's legitimacy. Their insights shed light on the ongoing tensions and potential reforms necessary for a modernized judicial system.
President Biden's proposals aim to reform the Supreme Court by addressing accountability for presidents and establishing term limits for justices.
The discussion highlights the complexities of implementing a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices amid concerns over Congressional authority.
Political polarization is critically affecting public trust in the judiciary, influencing perceptions of its legitimacy and role in governance.
Deep dives
Proposals for Reforming the Supreme Court
President Biden introduced several proposals aimed at reforming the Supreme Court, such as eliminating the immunity that former presidents hold against prosecution for actions taken while in office, establishing 18-year term limits for justices, and creating a binding code of conduct for the justices. The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to counter the legal precedent established by the Trump vs. United States case, impacting the accountability of presidents. The discussion includes concerns over the implications of these proposals, particularly regarding potential overreach by Congress and the long-term effects on presidential powers. Attention is also given to whether these changes will be pursued through constitutional amendments or statutory laws, with potential complications arising from the latter approach.
Constitutional and Ethical Considerations
The discussion emphasizes the nuances involved in Biden's proposals for term limits and a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices. Specifically, the constitution defines judicial tenure as 'good behavior,' leading to complexities regarding how Congress could modify these terms via statute. Imposing a binding code of conduct raises questions about Congressional authority and the enforcement mechanisms available, including whether current impeachment powers are sufficient. The discussion underscores the importance of detailing these proposals to ensure they effectively address existing concerns without introducing new constitutional dilemmas.
Historical Context of Judicial Power
Scholars outline the historical tug-of-war between judicial supremacy and departmentalism in American constitutional law. Various presidents, including Jefferson and Lincoln, utilized departmentalism to challenge the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution. The conversation suggests that the current judicial landscape reflects a historical pattern, where the court often adapts to prevailing political sentiments. Investigating past moments when new judicial philosophies emerged reveals that such transformations are seldom linear and often require substantial political and social undercurrents.
The Implications of Party Polarization
The current state of political polarization is highlighted as a critical factor influencing the relationship among the three branches of government. Both parties have struggled to form broad coalitions that can effectively govern, resulting in a fragmented political scene where different institutions appear out of sync. This division contributes to deep-seated perceptions of the court as representing the interests of a minority, complicating its legitimacy in the eyes of a divided populace. The inability to reconcile these differences may lead to calls for reform and the questioning of the court's role within the larger governance framework.
Public Confidence in the Courts
Trust in the judiciary has become a significant issue, with recent decisions causing concern among the public about the court's alignment with democratic values. Historical evidence shows that confidence in the court can decline when decisions consistently favor one political ideology over another. The conversation discusses the need for courts to assure fairness in their rulings to maintain legitimacy and foster public trust. Addressing how the courts engage with societal expectations and perceptions could play a central role in restoring that trust moving forward.
This week, President Joe Biden announced a three-fold plan to reform the Supreme Court. The proposal includes a constitutional amendment that no former president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office, 18-year Supreme Court term limits, and a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices. In this episode, constitutional historians Keith Whittington of Yale Law School and Anthony Michael Kreis of Georgia State University and author of the new book Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in Political Development, join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the mechanics and merits of President Biden’s proposed court reforms and delve into the relationship between politics and the judiciary from the founding until today.