SCOTUS Reforms: Biden’s Proposals | BNCL

Restoring Faith in Our Judicial System: A Non-Partisan Approach to Supreme Court Reform

July 30, 2024
Image of the SCOTUS courthouse
 
In recent years, the American public’s trust in the Supreme Court has been shaken by decisions that many perceive as overtly political and ethically compromised. President Joe Biden’s recent op-ed in the Washington Post highlights three critical reforms to restore trust and ensure accountability within the highest court of the land. Regardless of political leanings, these proposed changes make sense for our nation and align with the principles of justice and fairness that BNCL champions.

 

The Need for Reform
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in office is a stark reminder of the potential for abuse of power. Coupled with ethical scandals involving justices, there is a growing perception that the court is losing its impartiality. This perception undermines public confidence in the court’s ability to deliver justice without bias.

 

No One Is Above the Law Amendment
The first reform President Biden proposes is the No One Is Above the Law Amendment, which would eliminate immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. This amendment is crucial for several reasons:
  1. Equality Before the Law: The principle that no one, not even a president, is above the law is foundational to our democracy. Ensuring that former presidents can be held accountable for their actions while in office reinforces this principle.
  2. Deterrence of Misconduct: Without immunity, future presidents will have a stronger incentive to adhere to the law, knowing they [POTUS] cannot escape legal consequences once they leave office.
  3. Restoration of Trust: By holding former presidents accountable, we can begin to restore the public’s faith in our judicial system and demonstrate that justice applies equally to all.
Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
The second reform calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices. The current system of lifetime appointments has several drawbacks:
  1. Lack of Accountability: Lifetime appointments mean that justices are not accountable to the public or lack any real oversight body for their entire tenure. This can lead to complacency and a disconnect from contemporary societal values.
  2. Predictable Turnover: Implementing term limits would ensure regular turnover of justices, preventing any single president from disproportionately influencing the court’s composition. A system where each president appoints a justice every two years for an 18-year term would create a more balanced and predictable judicial appointment process.
  3. Reduced Partisanship: Regular turnover would reduce the high-stakes nature of Supreme Court appointments, which have become intensely partisan battles. This likely leads to a more measured and less politically charged appointment process.
Binding Code of Conduct
The third reform is implementing a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices. The current voluntary ethics code is insufficient and lacks enforcement mechanisms. A binding code of conduct would address several issues:
  1. Transparency and Accountability: Justices would be required to disclose gifts and financial interests, reducing the risk of conflicts of interest and unethical behavior.
  2. Impartiality: Requiring justices to recuse themselves from cases where they have conflicts of interest would enhance the perception of impartiality and fairness in the court’s decisions.
  3. Public Confidence: An enforceable code of conduct would help restore public confidence in the Supreme Court by ensuring that justices adhere to the highest ethical standards.
A Non-Partisan Approach
These reforms are not about partisan politics; they are about preserving the integrity of our judicial system. As a law firm dedicated to civil rights litigation, BNCL understands the importance of a fair and impartial judiciary. We have seen firsthand how systemic issues within powerful institutions can harm individuals and communities. The proposed reforms align with our mission to fight for justice and ensure that the law serves and protects everyone equally.

 

Conclusion
President Biden’s proposals for Supreme Court reform are pragmatic and necessary steps toward restoring trust and accountability in our judicial system. By ensuring that no one is above the law, implementing term limits for justices, and enforcing a binding code of conduct, we can strengthen the guardrails of our democracy and protect the principles of justice and fairness.

 

At BNCL, we believe in the power of the law to bring about positive change and uphold the rights of all individuals. Reforms supported by a majority of Americans and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum are essential for preserving the integrity of our Supreme Court and, by extension, our democracy.

 

In America, the rule of law must prevail, and the people must always have faith in the institutions designed to protect their rights. By embracing these reforms, we can move towards a more just and equitable society where the law truly serves all its citizens.
Case Results

Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

Read More
Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
John Burris
Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

Read More
Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
Rodney King
Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

Read More
Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
FEATURED News & Updates

Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

Watch our video
Share via
Copy link