# President Biden Calls for Major Changes to the Supreme Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 29, 2024, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954 "2024-07-29T15:47:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mjmartin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@mjmartin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmartin)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2024, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/66 "2024-07-29T19:45:34Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > With _Dobbs_, women have finally seen in a tangible way just how impactful decisions made by the Supreme Court can be for their welfare and bodily autonomy. It’s a big, big issue in this election. Dobbs is a big, big issue and one that Harris is running on. It’s also a winning issue. Term limits and codes of ethics are a big issue, but not a winning one. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > Biden’s actions shine a bright light on what must be done to make changes real changes. If it moves this needle even just a little toward restoring SCOTUS integrity, it will be a worthwhile effort on Biden’s part. IMHO, it’s a great idea, but poor timing. It looks like a hail Mary to keep Biden in the news. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I am confident he will not propose anything that has the potential to hurt Harris or her chances. Biden has shown in the last 2 weeks that he remains a skilled politician (or has very skilled people working for him), so I agree with this. I just don’t see where the timing benefits the election or the issue. Hopefully I will be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2024, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/67 "2024-07-29T19:50:24Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > By putting this forth right before the elections, it lets the Democrats say “You need to elect Democrats to the Presidency, House, and Senate so we can do something to fix this problem”. First you have to convince them that there is a problem to fix. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/68 "2024-07-30T03:22:59Z")
Way I see this proposal: 1. The proposals may not be politically possible, but they’re good proposals. I agree with all three proposals. 2. I suspect that the proposals will be broadly popular. Who _doesn’t_ like anti-corruption laws? Who _doesn’t_ like term limits? While there are reasonable arguments against the proposals, I think they require a lot of nuance; at first blush they’re all awesome. 3. Biden’s ownership of these proposals is a pain in the ass for Republicans. Right when they’re trying to reorient themselves toward Harris, here comes Biden saying shit that requires their attention. They don’t WANT to be attacking Biden anymore; they want to save all their energy for Harris, but now they either have to focus back on Biden, or they have to ignore his proposals, neither of which is good for them. Harris can just be like, “I agree,” and keep campaigning. Republicans can try to take that agreement as grounds to attack her, but again, Biden owns these proposals. It looks pretty savvy to me. ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/69 "2024-07-30T03:36:15Z")
I’m in agreement with @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness’s analysis (which I want to mention, was admirably accurate and succinct, the latter of which I can’t do well). Or as others say, let’s acknowledge the problem and put it before voters, and let Trump refute it (to his detriment hopefully) and have to split his attention between Biden and Harris. But yes, while there is some hope for the ethics rules on the SCOTUS, our system is far too broken for an amendment for probably at _least_ a generation. Doesn’t mean it isn’t worth putting out there. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/70 "2024-07-30T03:43:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Harris can just be like, “I agree,” and keep campaigning. Republicans can try to take that agreement as grounds to attack her, but again, Biden owns these proposals. It depends on the spin (or lack of it for straight reporting). > **[Kamala Harris supports major changes to Supreme Court](https://cardinalpine.com/2024/07/29/major-changes-supreme-court/)** > > Harris and President Biden are calling on Congress to establish term limits and a more binding, enforceable code of ethics for Supreme Court justices. “These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the Court, strengthen our democracy, and... versus > **[Kamala Harris announces she is co-proposing Biden plan to shake up Supreme...](https://nypost.com/2024/07/29/us-news/kamala-harris-announces-she-is-co-proposing-biden-plan-to-shake-up-scotus-no-one-is-above-the-law/)** > > “These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the Court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law.” What is remarkable to me is that the President of the United States is proposing to revamp the Supreme Court and it did not lead the national news tonight. The torch has been truly passed. ---
**Author:** ![Sylvanz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@Sylvanz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sylvanz)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/71 "2024-07-30T03:46:01Z")
I wish he would advocate expanding the court. Honestly, even before this group of, corrupt grifters, got shoved in, it was well past time to expand the court. No amendment required. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/72 "2024-07-30T04:32:52Z")
Would the term limits be retroactive or would the court only be free of Clarence Thomas after 18 years have passed? I agree on expanding the court as well. Have lots of judges and randomize which ones will take each case to at least somewhat mitigate partisan shitbaggery. They seem busy enough as is to merit a much larger Supreme Court that deals with cases year-round. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/73 "2024-07-30T06:16:02Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > Would the term limits be retroactive or would the court only be free of Clarence Thomas after 18 years have passed? I was wondering about that as well. Would the current justices be grandfathered in, and be allowed to serve as long as they’d like, or would they be forced to retire after a certain amount of time? Also under this scheme, if a justice dies or retires before their term is up, would their replacement be appointed to serve out only the remainder of that justice’s term, or would they be allowed a full 18-year-term? If the latter, I can imagine that creating its own set of problems before long, such as justices retiring a year or two early just to be able to guarantee that a president of their favored party gets to appoint their successor for the next 18 years. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.winston_oboogie/32/2945_2.png) [@Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Winston_OBoogie)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/74 "2024-07-30T14:00:44Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The system for judicial appointments is basically sound. It presumes that a responsible and knowledgeable president will nominate a qualified candidate who will then be confirmed by the Senate, considered to be the senior deliberative body in Congress. The process completely falls apart when said president is an orange ignoramus and said Senate is comprised of worthies like Tommy Tuberville, Josh Hawley, and J D Vance. Sadly, that, and not the process itself, is the root of the problem. No, the system falls apart when the leader of the confirming body realizes he doesn’t have to fill positions nominated by a president of the opposing party. I don’t think McConnell filled a judicial position during the last year of Obama’s presidency, leaving a huge backlog to be filled once Trump was in office. And, I doubt that Trump (or any president, really) took any real interest in the judicial nominations other than an aid handing him a list of openings and a list of Heritage-approved nominees. Rank-and-file senators like Tuberville, Hawley, and Vance have nothing to do with that. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/75 "2024-07-30T15:40:25Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > On the subject of fixed terms potentially resulting in a court that constantly changes it’s rulings, is there evidence of this from other countries that have fixed terms for their justices? First world countries don’t have politicians sitting as judges, so the question never arises. If you step back a level, in first world countries politicians make laws, so judges don’t have to and indeed cannot. Of course, that could never work in the USA. On the general topic, I assume Mr Biden is raising this now, so that there is a high profile public debate about how the Republicans are destroying your institutions and refusing to let them be fixed, so that in late January President Harris can pragmatically appoint eight new justices with plausible conviction that it is the only way to make America great again. ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/76 "2024-07-30T17:48:57Z")
I agree that attacking the Court is both good for the country and politically wise. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/77 "2024-07-30T18:48:16Z")
> [@Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](#): > > No, the system falls apart when the leader of the confirming body realizes he doesn’t have to fill positions nominated by a president of the opposing party. That’s just a subset of my general statement that the Court has become a discreditable partisan body because the supposed senior deliberative body that is supposed to confirm justices is comprised of morons and partisan extremists. I should have included McConnell in the list of examples. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/78 "2024-07-30T18:55:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > First you have to convince them that there is a problem to fix. Right, exactly. Which is why Biden is saying this now. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/79 "2024-07-30T19:37:50Z")
Raising the prominence of this concern during an election when the best way to implement changes is for their to be stronger Democratic representation in both chambers of Congress seems to me to be a great way for Joe Biden to spend his remaining time in office. For too long, citizens have ignored the outsized impact the SCOTUS can have on their lives. I think they might be listening now. I’m glad Biden is placing his emphasis on the issue. > [@Sandwich](#): > > On the general topic, I assume Mr Biden is raising this now, so that there is a high profile public debate about how the Republicans are destroying your institutions and refusing to let them be fixed, _so that in late January President Harris can pragmatically appoint eight new justices with plausible conviction_ that it is the only way to make America great again. (Emphasis mine.) This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process to make changes to the Justices sitting on the SCOTUS. 1. A vacancy must occur, through either the death or retirement of a current Justice. 2. A president can’t “appoint” them. The can only be nominated. 3. The proposed justice will be publicly vetted. 4. The Senate must be allowed to vote on the nomination. Whether the nomination is brought to the floor for a vote is up to the majority leader in the Senate. They always were until McConnell decided to ignore this norm and refused to bring Merrick Garland’s nomination to the floor for a vote. 5. A two-thirds majority of the Senate must vote in favor of the nominated justice. President Harris can’t “appoint” eight new justices for any reason. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/80 "2024-07-30T19:40:19Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > For too long, citizens have ignored the outsized impact the SCOTUS can have on their lives. I think they might be listening now. I’m glad Biden is placing his emphasis on the issue. And it’s also consistent with his messaging after the SCOTUS ruled on presidential immunity. He did not mince words about how reckless and dangerous that ruling was. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/81 "2024-07-30T19:46:14Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process to make changes to the Justices sitting on the SCOTUS. > > 1. A vacancy must occur, through either the death or retirement of a current Justice. > 2. A president can’t “appoint” them. The can only be nominated. > 3. The proposed justice will be publicly vetted. > 4. The Senate must be allowed to vote on the nomination. Whether the nomination is brought to the floor for a vote is up to the majority leader in the Senate. They always were until McConnell decided to ignore this norm and refused to bring Merrick Garland’s nomination to the floor for a vote. > 5. A two-thirds majority of the Senate must vote in favor of the nominated justice. > > President Harris can’t “appoint” eight new justices for any reason. I don’t think that’s exactly right (specifically points 1 and 5). > **[The Judicial Branch | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/)** > > Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one's peers. > [@](#): > > The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure. _In theory_, a Democratically-controlled House and Senate could change rules to allow a simple majority vote on legislation about the number of SC justices, then increase the number to 13 (for example), allowing Harris to nominate an additional 4 justices immediately, creating a 7-6 Democratically-nominated majority. Since Republicans changed the rules in 2017, only a simple majority in the Senate is required for cloture and for the subsequent vote. Now, _in practice_, Republicans would scream blue murder if the rules were changed in that way. But in theory it’s possible. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/82 "2024-07-30T19:49:48Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > _In theory_, a Democratically-controlled House and Senate could change rules to allow a simple majority vote on legislation about the number of SC justices, then increase the number to 13 (for example), allowing Harris to nominate an additional 4 justices immediately, creating a 7-6 Democratically-nominated majority. Since Republicans changed the rules in 2017, only a simple majority in the Senate is required for cloture and for the subsequent vote. Thank you for making this distinction/correction. As you point out, the likelihood is extremely slim. ETA: Apologies to @Atamasama. I started out responding to him and then ended up responding to LHOD! ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/83 "2024-07-30T19:51:18Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > ETA: Apologies to @Atamasama. I started out responding to him and then ended up responding to LHOD! It’s okay, I appreciate the attention. 😊 ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2024, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/84 "2024-07-30T19:56:54Z")
> [@Sylvanz](#): > > I wish he would advocate expanding the court. Honestly, even before this group of, corrupt grifters, got shoved in, it was well past time to expand the court. No amendment required. That is certainly the most expedient way of getting reform, and may be what is required, but I don’t think that Biden should be going there just yet. Stacking the court sounds like partisan cheating in a way that ethics and term limits do not. So politically it is much better for him to support the latter two options rather than the first. In any case there is no way that anything to be done until the Dems can take back congress so at this time politics is the only point. If we win big in November and it becomes clear that the Supreme Court is running off the rails and there is no possibility of and Amendment, then Harris can say that she is reluctantly forced to use the more expedient alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2024, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/85 "2024-07-31T22:30:59Z")
Ethics rules seem like a no-brainer, right? Ah, but not in Conservativeland, where opponents feel that ethics rules will be applied selectively only to conservative justices. The conservative perspective of corruption is becoming pretty baked in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954.md?page=4)