President Joe Biden has proposed a three-part plan to reform the Supreme Court that aims to address recent court decisions that Democrats find unfavorable.

Biden's plan includes imposing term limits for justices, creating an enforceable ethics code, and amending the Constitution to limit former presidents' immunity from prosecution for official acts, but critics say it is already on life support in terms of approval chances, as the Washington Examiner reports.

The proposal, unveiled on Monday, has sparked a vigorous debate among legal experts and political observers about its feasibility and potential impact.

Main Components of Biden's Proposal

Biden's plan is multifaceted and aims to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. This overhaul is intended to ensure a rotation in the justices' seats and bring more modern perspectives to the bench.

Additionally, Biden has called for the establishment of an enforceable ethics code. This measure would require justices to disclose gifts, abstain from political activities, and recuse themselves from cases where they have conflicts of interest.

One of the most contentious elements of Biden's proposal is a constitutional amendment. This amendment seeks to overturn the recent ruling in Trump v. United States, which grants former presidents significant immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office.

The Controversial Trump v. United States Ruling

The Trump v. United States decision, issued on July 1, affirms that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts during their terms. This ruling has been a significant point of contention, as many critics argue it places former presidents above the law.

In response, Biden's proposed "No One Is Above the Law" amendment aims to ensure former presidents are not immune from federal indictments, trials, convictions, or sentencing.

Challenges To Amending Constitution

Amending the Constitution is an arduous process. It requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, followed by the ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions. Historically, only 27 amendments have been ratified, the most recent in 1992.

Legal experts, including Steve Vladeck, question the focus on overturning Trump v. United States when other Supreme Court decisions also warrant attention. "What about an amendment to overrule Rucho and reaffirm that the federal courts can adjudicate severe partisan gerrymandering?" Vladeck asked.

Expert Opinions on Term Limits, Ethics Code

Vladeck also voiced concerns about the implementation of statutory term limits, suggesting they would be constitutional only if applied to future justices. "That means, 30-40 years from now, when the last of the current justices leaves the Court, we’d have nine justices with term limits—but not tomorrow," he explained.

The proposed ethics code for the Supreme Court aims to increase transparency and accountability among justices. Biden's call for Congress to pass a law on this matter would require considerable support to secure 60 votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster.

Political And Legislative Implications

The political implications of Biden's proposals are significant. Mike Davis remarked, "If Kamala Harris wins the White House, she will almost certainly carry the House and Senate with her. They will nuke the Senate’s legislative filibuster -- 60 vote threshold -- and pack the Supreme Court with radicals."

The likelihood of such sweeping changes remains uncertain. Despite the Democrats holding a slim majority, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not advanced a similar Democratic bill for a vote, making it improbable to reach the 60-vote threshold needed.

Concerns Over Court's Independence

Concerns about the potential impact of term limits and other reforms on the independence of the judiciary have also been raised. Kelly Shackelford voiced a critical view, stating, "Term limits are simply court-packing by another name. The judiciary will no longer be a safeguard of our civil liberties but will instead be little more than a political tool used to crush the freedom of Americans."

Republicans and other critics argue that Biden's proposals are more about political posturing than substantive reforms. Harmeet K. Dhillon commented, “It’s all posturing for the election season to try to garner votes amongst the far Left but also to bully the United States Supreme Court into not pursuing its current path of enforcing the Constitution.”

Conclusion

Biden's proposed Supreme Court reforms have sparked a complex and multifaceted debate. The plan outlines term limits, an enforceable ethics code, and a pivotal constitutional amendment aimed at removing immunity from prosecution for former presidents.

Legal experts and political analysts are divided on the feasibility of this ambitious plan, particularly given the stringent requirements for constitutional amendments and the current partisan divides in Congress. Biden's proposals face significant legislative hurdles, raising questions about the future of Supreme Court reforms in the United States.