Law professor John Yoo criticized President Joe Biden's plans to implement significant reforms in the U.S. Supreme Court, calling them a "banana republic tactic" during a broadcast on Fox News.

The proposed changes, which include setting term limits for justices and introducing an ethics code, come in response to recent controversial rulings and ethics scandals involving the Court, Newsweek reported.

John Yoo discussed the potential implications of these changes on "Cavuto Live," a Fox News program aired on a recent Saturday. His critical views reflect a deep concern about the stability and future independence of the judiciary.

Washington Post Uncovers Biden's Supreme Court Plan

A report by the Washington Post released the previous Tuesday highlighted President Biden's endorsement of significant changes to the structure of the Supreme Court.

This plan, still in the proposal stage, aims to address recent tensions stemming from the Court's decisions and the behavior of some justices.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on July 1, a 6-3 decision concerning presidential immunity, highlighted the differentiation between official and unofficial acts, drawing widespread attention and debate.

Controversial Actions and Political Responses

In related news, the Department of Justice has accused former President Donald Trump of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, a charge he vehemently denies by claiming immunity and insisting the election was stolen. This controversy ties into broader discussions about the role and accountability of the Supreme Court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have also come under fire for alleged ethical misconduct, including undisclosed gifts and perceived biases in cases linked to the 2020 election. This has led Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to file impeachment articles against them, though these are expected to fail in the Republican-controlled House.

Yoo's Strong Critique of Supreme Court Changes

Yoo expressed his concerns about the proposed changes, arguing that they could destabilize the Court and affect its ability to protect individual rights. "It would be sad if President Biden were to end his decades of public service by adopting another banana republic tactic like this," Yoo remarked on the program.

"It is not in the American tradition to start changing the composition of the Supreme Court just because you disagree with it. Altering the number of justices and the Court's configuration will set off tit-for-tat retaliation, with each side responding to the other. This poses a threat to all our individual liberties," he added during his Saturday appearance.

Implications for Judicial Independence

Yoo continued his critique in a statement, saying, "The Court is there as a last resort to protect all of our individual rights against the majority. If the Court becomes afraid of being attacked every time it renders an unpopular decision, then that last resort will be weakened and our Constitutional rights will suffer."

He further elaborated in an email to Newsweek, "Changing the Supreme Court, such as imposing term limits or adding (or deleting) the number of Justices, will encourage a spiral of tit-for-tat retaliation that will destabilize the Court and undermine the independence of the judiciary."

Political Reactions and Historical Context

Yoo pointed out that the Democratic push for restructuring the Court stems from disagreements over its recent decisions on critical issues such as abortion and guns.

"Would Democrats have thought it was okay for Republicans to impose term limits and expand the number of justices after the Court approved gay marriage, at a time when 60 percent of Americans opposed it? That is what will happen in the future if Biden and his party succeed," Yoo argued.

Meanwhile, David Litt, in an op-ed for The Atlantic, supported Biden's plans and criticized the politicization of the Court, noting that its conservative judges have resisted checks and balances. "As the Court has become more politicized, its conservative judges have insisted that checks and balances ought not apply to the judicial branch," Litt wrote.

Broadening the Debate Over Court's Role

Litt also discussed the emerging norm regarding Supreme Court appointments: "Although no one has formally declared the change, people generally accept that the Senate will not confirm justices while the Senate and the White House belong to opposite parties, and justices will not retire while a president of the opposite party is in office," he added.

In conclusion, the debate over the proposed changes to the Supreme Court encapsulates significant constitutional and political challenges.

The controversy includes a broad spectrum of opinions, ranging from concerns about destabilizing the judicial system to arguments in favor of necessary reforms to preserve the Court's integrity.