President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

  • person420@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s interesting. I wonder if there’s a way to codify it that only n justices can proceed over a single case. That also has the added bonus of allowing the court to hear multiple cases at the same time, reducing the backlog.

    Like the justices are picked through lottery or something like that.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I imagine that some justices will simply abstain from involving themselves in certain cases they don’t find particularly important. For example, the court might vote 8-7 in favor of granting certiorari in a given case. Several of the justices who voted against certiorari might further elect not to participate in the case at all.

      • person420@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That definitely doesn’t fix the coalitions issue though. Any meaningful case is going to have every judge want to be involved and get split right down partisan lines (as much as I hate to say that, it’s been a proven fact over the past at least 8 years or so).

        I kind of like the idea where they don’t get to pick their workload. It feels like they’ll have less opportunities to game the system.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I am far less concerned about the justices gaming the system than I am about the appellants. With less than the full court assigned to a case, the appellants are going to go shopping. Their backers will keep bringing case after case, and then withdrawing their appeal if they don’t draw a favorable panel.