In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, President Joe Biden proposed important reforms to the U.S. Supreme Court. He recommended a term limit of 18 years and an ethics code for Justices of the Supreme Court. Public opinion of the Court is at its lowest since polling began in 1987. This may be in response to ethical and partisan scandals associated with the Court, as well as politically-motivated decisions.
During Trump’s single term, he was able to add three justices to the Court, stacking it with a 6-3 hard-right majority (thanks to the Federalist Society, its leader Leonard Leo, President Trump, and the canny Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell).
The Court first showed its radicalism by overturning Roe v. Wade, then followed with several other extremist decisions, giving the President “absolute immunity” for any crimes he commits while in office (Trump v. U.S.), sharply reducing the powers of regulatory agencies (the “Chevron Doctrine”), eroding the line between church and state (Carson v. Makin)), and more. You might reasonably wonder why President Biden didn’t push these goals sooner. As an institutionalist, he was loath to breach the separation of powers, and he knew he did not have the votes in Congress to win. Nonetheless, he is laying out important aims for the future.
President Biden wrote:
This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.
But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.
If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.
And that’s only the beginning.
On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.
I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.
What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.
That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.
First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.
Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.
Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.
All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.
We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.
In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.

Re “You might reasonably wonder why President Biden didn’t push these goals sooner.” Isn’t the answer obvious? He wanted to get re-elected and the political calculus was unfavorable, or so they thought. “The people” are in favor but that is irrelevant, you have to get such reforms past the politicians.
Now that he is officially a “lame-duck,” he is unburdened by such concerns and he is also given people reasons to make sure the Democrats control both houses and the presidency.
LikeLike
The Republicans, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema would have voted down any reform to the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
The reason these republicans would have voted down any reform is very likely grounded in the fact that the Court is trying to be weaponized.
LikeLike
I am not sure what the answer is here but Steve brings up important points. The Supreme Court has been be highly politicized and they are trying to weaponize it not reform it. Whatever changes are made a non political Supreme Court is essential.
LikeLike
while I agree that the Supreme Court has given us the constitutional crisis we are in, and while I agree that something must be done, I would submit that there are different solutions from the ones proposed. I oppose term limits. I support ethical standards enforced by law, but there is no need for an amendment, just a police force with investigative power.
the real reform we need is in the number of justices and the quality of those justices, not just in the Supreme Court, but in other federal courts as well. The number of incompetent judges is not limited to Aileen “loose” Cannon. Minimum standards for experience, educational background, and similar considerations are vital. Moreover, choosing candidates for these posts needs to be a bi-partisan procedure, as demonstrated by the Federalist Society and its placing of two justices from the same high school recently. Diversity of appointments has to do with much more than ethnic background or gender; it has to do with representation of geographic areas, experience with varied stakeholders in the judicial process, and a host of factors in addition to deep experience with the law.
The same attention needs to be given to the apportionment of the US House. We have come to a point where people who live in dense populations are very under-represented, and those on large acreage (that’s me, except I vote differently) are very well represented. We need to enlarge the house, and draw districts that reflect a similarity of interests. Diluting interest should be a thing that is outside the law.
LikeLike
“Diversity of appointments has to do with much more than ethnic background or gender; it has to do with representation of geographic areas, experience with varied stakeholders in the judicial process, and a host of factors in addition to deep experience with the law.”
BINGO!…..it seems that some diversity is far more diverse, prescribed, prefered, desired than others. Perhaps we need a well defined comprehensive definition of what diversity actually is?
LikeLike
My proposal.
13 federal court districts, then 13 SC judges-one for each district with terms staggered. Judges elected using rank voting by the people in the district. Eight year terms with a two term limit. Same salary as Congress. The only qualification would be the same as the President. . . American citizen by birth and at least 35 years old. No need for a law degree or any degree as far as that is concerned.
LikeLike
Hi Duane,
What is the rationale for not having a law degree or any degree ? Would you be ok with your doctor having no degree either?
LikeLike
There are many brilliant folks out there without law degrees. One wouldn’t have to vote for a non-JD degreed person if they didn’t want to. Leave it open for all. Why do we let any Joe/Jane Blow become jurors? Shouldn’t they all have law degrees?
LikeLike
And while you are at it, make sure to choose a cardiac surgeon without a degree in medicine, one who will perform the operation with a Barlow knife and a sharpened stick.
LikeLike
Sad!
LikeLike
Because you will need the knife to sharpen the stick. Rubbing it on a rock takes too long.
LikeLike
More sad!
LikeLike
Duane, a judge or justice needs to understand the law. Otherwise, he or she simply is in no position to do lots of stuff such as to apply precedent properly, to understand the consequences of a decision for other laws and regulations, to be able to figure out whether arguments put forward do or do not conform with other relevant common and statutory law, and so on.
LikeLike
Hence the staggered terms wherein there will always be experienced justices to guide the new members. Something like every two years there would be elections in 2-3 of the circuits.
It seems that what you are defending is the status quo of the SC which I think that most agree is not ideal at all as they are political lifetime appointees beholden to no one.
LikeLike
Thanks, Flerp, I’m aware of that. I wish I didn’t have to have a degree or anything in TESOL to be able to teach English.
LikeLike
On the other hand, at least you don’t need to be approved by a majority of the Senate.
LikeLike
Interesting! Same for the federal judiciary in general? It would be great if Aileen Cannon got one, though.
LikeLike
I think it’s the same for the federal judiciary generally.
Also no age minimums.
LikeLike
Flerp,
Hahahahaaa!!! Believe me… getting a job at some schools is harder than being confirmed by the Senate!!!😂😂😂
LikeLike
HI Duane: Yes . . . many intelligent people; but you forget: we are in an age of specialization–and being intelligent as such is not “knowing your stuff.”
Being an intelligent person is, as they say, necessary but not sufficient if one is to aspire to excellence in one’s specialist field.
Einstein probably couldn’t just pick up and be an excellent plumber. But don’t ask the intelligent plumber to understand physics either . . . not without a long stint in training and education in a specific field, sometimes the better for having committed to it for a lifetime–it all continues to feed into one’s wisdom.
And then there is morality and politics and even spirituality, which are supposed to come to a person in the cultural air . . . but still need to be “honed” in one’s personal commitments and choices (failures and successes), or from one’s family, or from one’s K-12 education, from one’s church or other institutions, or just because one is in touch with one’s fundamental interior roots and have a good conscience.
Again, necessary and sometimes even sufficient.
The Supreme Court judges were put in a place where they had/have no one but themselves to give an account to. It’s a naive idealist’s pipedream, a kind of interior circular firing squad. High principles dry out from lack of use, and from being seduced $$, so that the principle sinks down to “I can, I want to, and so I will;” and one’s intelligence, now unmoored from extrinsic moral, social, political, and spiritual power, rots in an airless interior room to becomes a monster.
On the other hand, Joe Biden is showing that the democratic dream of intelligent and moral self-determination, and love as being at the center of everyone’s political life and power, aka in the people, is in fact, accomplished by way of a single person.
And there’s the catch–the exception may be rare, but it proves the rule and so the ideal becomes the practical.
The law is a massive specialty field. CBK
LikeLike
I would not want to be represented in a lawsuit by a really smart person who had studied law and passed the bar exam. Granted, there are terrible lawyers, with degrees. But I still would insist on being represented by someone who knew the law.
LikeLike
Diane: Exactly that. I think also therein lies the core of the anti-intellectualist attitude in so many and, in particular, that I experienced even in teachers coming back to get their master’s degrees in education.
In fact, there is a difference between (a) “commonsense” culture (which is messy but also “commonly” quite intelligent and sane and humanistic) and a (b) professional in any field who, for instance, has attended college, who understands movements in theoretical work behind their profession, and who has taken up a specialty or group of them, and so is deemed an “intellectual;” difference, yes, but no fundamental conflict or opposition.
Many of my teacher/students tended to set up this kind of false opposition in their thinking that was rooted mainly in their lack of understanding of the real differences and need for both.
As you know, teaching is a serious profession with lots of specialty elements (again, theoretically based) but where a teacher’s profession is to work in the midst of a huge and varied commonsense arena where most have no idea about theory or specialties–everything is understood on one plane of order.
Unless teachers can make and keep the distinctions and learn to work both with commonsense culture AND with specialists in other specialties as professionals, it becomes easy for us to get lost and to revert to commonsense-only, or to become “haughty” about one’s specialist knowledge, and so the idea persists that the different arenas MUST BE conflictive. <–a bit of a tangent, but just one of the problems that occur in teaching those who already are K-12 teachers. CBK
LikeLike
how many districts do we have now?
LikeLike
Every state has at least one. Many have multiple. New York has four (eastern, southern, western, and northern)
LikeLike
Thirteen
LikeLike
You’re thinking of the 13 “circuits.”
LikeLike
yes, a judge from each one
LikeLike
I have read that case loads are backed up due to the rise and n population. This being true, it would seem a corresponding rise in numbers of legal venues would seem logical.
LikeLike
There’s already no requirement that a Supreme Court justice have a law degree or any degree, or be any age, or even be a native-born U.S. citizen. We’ve had a Supreme Court justice who didn’t even have a high school diploma (James Byrnes). So your requirements would be more stringent than what we currently have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting proposal Duane. The law can be pretty complicated, and jurors (supposedly) make decisions based on the directions they’re given by the judge.
Since you mentioned no need for a law degree or any degree for that matter, I have a wonderful idea! Let’s create an organization called…
…Litigate for America (LFA).
LikeLike
Hmm. . . not sure how that would work and for what purpose. (or am I missing your sarcasm?)
LikeLike
Duane,
Litigate for America (LFA) would be based on the Teach for America (TFA) model, except there wouldn’t be any 5-6 weeks of summer training. I’m sure good people have seen enough Peoples’ Court and Judge Judy to know what to do.
I mean, if we can have TFA, why not have Litigate for America (LFA) and forgo all that time consuming and expense of law school stuff?
LikeLike
Duane: You write: Leave it open for all. Why do we let any Joe/Jane Blow become jurors? Shouldn’t they all have law degrees?
Not necessarily–because jurors are “of one’s peers” and only one leg of a four-legged table that is manifest in the systematics of the courtroom.
Jurors’ place is to mediate what they hear (and discuss in the jury room) from the other legs in the courtroom–(1) about the precedent of laws (the professional judge who provides and keeps order in the court), (2) the application of the laws to the details of this case as argued from both sides (by the professional attorneys); and (3) the jurors mediate that into the particulars of this case and this defendant, which is a “jury of one’s peers”–guilty or not . . . so a mixture, again, of peers, such as it is and can be.
The (4) fourth leg concerns the outcome and journey of the defendant–who then is either freed or goes to jail or whatever is deemed by other aspects of the punishment process, commonly a different court proceeding–according to law. CBK
LikeLike
DUANE: Your point about SCOTUS being lifetime appointees and having no oversight is THE major difference; and it is why things have gone so awry in the supreme court; whereas the rest of the courts and judges are all involved in the dynamism of interactive checks and balances, and so of a beautiful systematic general order that doesn’t work all of the time, but without it (the rule of law), there is no democracy. CBK
LikeLike
Now that Biden is more able to speak his mind, he is using his bully pulpit to point the Democrats in a direction he feels the country needs to go. He is trying to set the stage for the future. Most reasonable Americans that value our freedom and rights would like to see us hold The Supreme Court more accountable and limit the court’s biased overreach.
LikeLike
A malignant demagogue and blowhard, Trump, gets to appoint 3, THREE SCOTUS justices in his one term at playing president!!!??!!! What the actual smagucci, how does this happen!? Or was it the Federalist Society that did the actual appointing?
Yes, of course SCOTUS justices should not get lifetime appointments, 18 years is long enough. The chances of that ever being enacted are zero to none. Mike Johnson said that it was a non-starter. The Democrats need to control the House, Senate, (with large majorities), and the presidency before any sensible SCOTUS reforms can be achieved.
LikeLike
That’s why Democrats need to work extra hard to restore the faith of the working class. They need to continue Biden’s legacy and bring good paying jobs back to the US. It is the way to counterbalance fifty years of devastating neoliberal policies.
LikeLike
Expanding the court will always face a problem of timing. At any given time, one party will have a power advantage with respect to the appointment of new justices, but likely not enough of an advantage to overcome the filibuster. Therefore whichever party lacks that advantage will resist expanding the court and filibuster any proposed legislation. To get it through Congress, you’d have to nuke the filibuster for general legislation. Maybe that will happen one day, but it’s a big step. And if it does happen, the minority party could just expand SCOTUS again later when it’s the majority party by rules that favor it. The game theory in a two party system is not good.
The proposed change to tenure likely requires a constitutional amendment, which is a pipe dream.
LikeLike
Dems need the triple play, winning the White House and Congress, initially Kamala is off and running, raising big bucks and voters, can she run the momentum into Election Day? If you’re this kick in some bucks, complaining FB doesn’t win elections, dollars help …
LikeLike
Pretending the institutional mechanisms that were established by power, were established to hobble power, all but ignores the ongoing results. At any given time, the APPOINTED call the shots. Appointed power isn’t transferred, it’s ongoing. Rump couldn’t have interrupted it, if he wanted to. What’s for sale, ISN’T democracy. Doing the bidding, of the donor paymasters isn’t democracy. Despair feeds on hope, especially FALSE hope. If the vote of we the people, could change anything, the electoral college would ignore it…
LikeLike