Biden is considering the introduction of term limits and a new ethics code for Supreme Court justices, signaling a major pivot from his earlier declared stances on the matter, as Fox News reports.

This development marks a departure from Biden's previous public resistance to expanding the number of justices or implementing major modifications to the Supreme Court.

Context Behind Biden's Judicial Reforms Proposal

Throughout his career, Biden has been known to oppose drastic judicial changes such as court-packing, which he once described as "boneheaded." However, the configuration of the Supreme Court shifted significantly toward a conservative majority during the Trump administration, seemingly impacting Biden's perspectives on judicial reform.

The proposed reforms are said to include setting term limits for justices and enforcing a strict ethics code, aiming to enhance transparency and accountability within the highest court in the United States.

These considerations have been influenced not only by inter-party pressures but also by the upcoming presidential election from which Biden has stepped back from his campaign, instead endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic front-runner.

The Legality of Imposing Term Limits

The idea of imposing term limits or mandatory retirement ages for Supreme Court justices by mere legislative action instead of a constitutional amendment is a contentious issue. Legal experts argue that such an initiative could potentially clash with the foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution.

John Shu, a prominent legal commentator, has articulated that efforts to enforce term limits without a constitutional amendment are fraught with complexities and could significantly undermine the democratic ethos and the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

"Attempting to do so definitely undermines democracy and separation of powers, as well as the constitution's very structure. It also tries to delegitimize the court as an institution," commented Shu.

Experts Criticize Biden's Judicial Reform Plans

Criticism has been widespread regarding the suggested reforms. Mike Davis, a well-known conservative legal analyst, emphasized that these proposals pose "a radical assault on judicial independence and a grave threat to democracy."

Moreover, Carrie Severino, another judicial commentator, predicts that this shift may influence other Democratic candidates, including Harris, who might embrace extreme policy ideas to appeal to specific interest groups that previously supported Biden.

Shu reiterated his concerns by stating, "It is colossally stupid and dangerous to wreck the... judicial branch of government just because certain people don't like some of the current court's rulings."

Presidential Election and the High Court's Future

As the presidential campaign season heats up, discussions about the Supreme Court are becoming increasingly central. The potential endorsement of judicial reforms by Biden has stirred a dialogue about the balance of power and the future of the U.S. legal system.

These proposed changes are not just a pivot in Biden's judicial philosophy but also reflect broader political dynamics and the increasingly polarized landscape in Washington, moving towards the upcoming elections.

The intersection of Supreme Court reforms with presidential politics highlights the evolving nature of judicial politics in an era marked by ideological battles and partisan divisions.

Summary and Conclusion

In conclusion, President Biden's shift towards supporting previously opposed Supreme Court reforms, such as imposing term limits and introducing a new ethics code, has ignited a wide range of responses, concerning legality, constitutionality, and implications for democracy.

Initially resistant to drastic judicial changes, Biden's reconsideration reflects both external pressures within his party and strategic positioning ahead of the endorsee electoral engagements.

Legal experts deeply question the propriety and potential consequences of these proposals, emphasizing their potentially damaging impacts on the structure and integrity of the judicial system.