Trump Values Judicial Independence Only When It Benefits Him
His criticism of President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reform is hard to take seriously.

Two weeks before President Joe Biden officially proposed term limits for Supreme Court justices, former President Donald Trump preemptively condemned the idea. "The Radical Left Democrats are desperately trying to 'Play the Ref' by calling for an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social, emphasizing the importance of "Fair and Independent Courts."
That critique glossed over the fact that Supreme Court term limits have attracted support from legal scholars on the right as well as the left. It was also hard to take seriously because Trump himself is hardly a consistent defender of judicial independence, which he values only when it leads to outcomes he likes.
In its 2021 report, the Biden-appointed Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States noted that "both liberal and conservative constitutional scholars" have advocated term limits. The commission, which included experts with diverse views, did not take a position one way or the other, but it heard testimony in favor of the concept from "a bipartisan group of experienced Supreme Court practitioners."
Under Biden's proposal, which copies the most frequently discussed version of this reform, justices would serve staggered 18-year terms, and each president would have a chance to appoint one every two years. Biden thinks Congress can create that system without a constitutional amendment—a point on which the commission's members were divided.
The commission noted that "life tenure is virtually unique to the U.S. federal judiciary." The top courts of nearly all the states and every other major constitutional democracy have term limits, mandatory retirement ages, or both.
Proponents of term limits argue that long, nonrenewable terms would preserve judicial independence while preventing any given president from shaping the court for decades thanks to luckily timed deaths or retirements. They say the benefits would include a more diverse mix of justices, less incentive for strategic retirements, less acrimony surrounding appointments, and more long-term correspondence between electoral outcomes and the power to choose the Supreme Court's members.
Opponents of the reform say it aims to fix something that is not really broken and that we should be wary of changing a system that has functioned well for hundreds of years. They also worry that term limits would foster legal instability, increase partisan bickering, further politicize the Supreme Court, undermine its perceived legitimacy, and weaken its independence.
Although Trump echoes that last concern, his sincerity is open to question. After all, this is the same politician who provoked a public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts by suggesting that federal judges reflexively side with the party of the presidents who appoint them.
Worse, Trump thinks judges should do the bidding of the president who picked them, provided that president was Trump himself. He reportedly was furious at the "betrayal" of two justices he had nominated, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who in July 2020 joined the majority in rejecting his challenge to a subpoena for his tax returns.
Later that year, Trump took his anger at the Supreme Court public after it declined to hear two cases challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. He complained that the justices—including Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and his third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett—had "just 'chickened out' and didn't want to rule on the merits."
Two weeks later, Trump called the justices "totally incompetent and weak" as well as cowardly. By refusing to consider his "absolute PROOF" of "massive Election Fraud," he said, they effectively endorsed "corrupt elections," meaning "we have no country!"
When Biden started talking about term limits, by contrast, Trump leapt to the defense of "our Honorable Supreme Court," which two weeks earlier had helped him out by approving potentially sweeping presidential immunity from prosecution. "We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts," he declared.
We can count on Trump to continue that fight—until the next time those courts reach a conclusion that offends him.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Besides the usual carping about where’s the Biden version of this, since he is the one proposing it, I’m really tired of this 18 term curing-all-the-ills bullshit.
* It’s been life tenure since the begining. The only urgency is Biden trying to fuck up the court as he leaves office.
* Biden sure hasn’t worried about limited terms for other politicians … like himself.
* And there is zero mention of what happens when a justice ends his term early. Someone else posted stats showing the average term is actually 16 years. So what happens when one dies early?
I’ll tell you what happens — some President is going to get an extra bite of the apple, and ditto 18 years later. The opposition is going to howl it’s unfair, the party in power will holler tough titties, and there’s going to be some new fix to fix the old fix, which will again make it worse.
I personally like the random nature of terms, since it makes life just a little bit less predictable for politicians and pundits. But that’s just the existing system, and I can think of lots better ways of reforming our judicial system than dinking with Supreme Court terms.
> So what happens when one dies early? I’ll tell you what happens — some President is going to get an extra bite of the apple, and ditto 18 years later.
This one is fairly easy to fix: a justice appointed under this scenario doesn't get the full 18 year term, they just finish off the term of the previous justice.
Sure -- and what if it's a 1 year replacement term? No justice is going to want to fill that, the Senate's not going to want to go through all that, and the politicians are still going to gripe that the President gets an extra bite at the apple.
At least in the Senate I would expect they wouldn't need to go through "all that" as there isn't much need to grill a nominee who will only be on the court for a year.
And I think you'd still find judges willing a take the job even for just a year, like federal judges nearing retirement anyway may want to take a ride on the big bench knowing there's no expectation of them being there longer than a year.
Also it's worth noting that the 16 year average is for all Justices since the court was established, but it's been getting longer recently. The average term prior to 1970 was 14.9 years, since 1970 it's been 26.1 years, and the 5 most recent Justices to leave the court served an average of 27.5 years.
The demographics would change when nominating a young judge was no longer as important.
And there's not a chance in hell the Senate or President would treat a short term nominee as less important than a full term one.
Life spans have been increasing. If there's a factor beyond that, it's that in the last two decades, the oldest _liberal_ judges have not been willing to trust even a strongly leftist Democrat President to replace them and have clung to their seats long past when they should have resigned. Amy Coney Barrett is on the court because a very ill Ginsburg hung through Obama's term but couldn't last through Trumps - and because Trump picked someone that even a Democratic Senate would promptly vote in. Kavanaugh is on the court because Anthony Stevens resigned while still apparently in good health - Stevens is still around six years later. And Gorsuch is on the court because, although Scalia died unexpectedly with plenty of time for Obama to select his successor, Obama picked a horrible radical leftist, and stuck to him even when it was clear the Republican Senate wouldn't even consider confirming his appointment.
This is all window dressing. The problem is government coercion.
The problem is Marxism.
All Marxism is government coercion, but not all government coercion is Marxism.
Let’s get rid of all the Marxists first. Then we can figure out how to deal with any remaining problems.
You are the government you deride. Unless you don't vote and just like to bitch and moan.
What does the enfeebled figure head think on the matter?
Seriously, I thought everyone realized Brandon wasn’t in charge of anything, let alone “proposing Supreme Court reform”. Are we back to ignoring his cognitive issues, and that no one really knows who’s calling the shots?
It’s Kamala and the senior WH staff running things. And a lot of wha they do is undoubtedly under Obama’s orders. As most of the WH inner circle are Obama administration retreads.
Have you forgotten he's productive from 10 AM to 4 PM?
This dude's criticism of Trump is hard to take seriously.
We already know Trump says whatever is on his mind, but how about actually covering the merits of this ridiculous proposal by a lame duck president so lacking in facilities he isn't even competent to stand trial?
How about telling us what Kamala feels about this.
How about not telling us what politicians value, think, or feel? Because, when you do that, you're simply projecting your own ideas. What's the libertarian take here?
Where's there analysis of the rather significant media and social manipulation aimed at deligitimizing the court over the past eight years? Everyone else on earth sees it. We talk about it here in the comments all the time. This seems to be an extension of that trend, so why aren't you covering that?
Nope. Petty bickering, no depth, and another display of TDS and you get to cash a paycheck. We really need an American Spiked online, I swear.
I'm not necessarily opposed to term limits on the court. The issue that he glosses over here is that it is only being proposed now as a means for the democrats to shift the court. It is only being proposed to shift the balance of power in their favor. Let's not forget that this is coming from the same guy/party who suddenly started advocating for adding justices to the Supreme Court the minute they lost control of it but had power in the White House and Senate.
Like most people, Trump doesn't like the court when he thinks they got something wrong. On the other hand, he has shown that he will abide by their rulings unlike Biden.
Democrats attempt a power grab and yet the focus of the article is on Trump criticizing it?
What is worse is what Biden and Democrats are mostly up in arms about are decisions that cut at the acculmulation of executive power in favor of the Congress and the judiciary. It is a whitlling away at the practical elements of the executive being ablle to act as a dictator that the anti-Trump forces are supposedly in such great fear of.
Sullum is reliably 'Trump too' or 'both sides' like this whenever the Democrats are doing something shitty.
Exactly. I assume Mr. Sullum's purported reason for writing the article is to show that Biden's actions are supported by others who are 'knowledgeable'. The article is necessary only (or primarily) because we all know the true reasons Biden is attempting it now. We also know that Mr. Sullum loves to jam Trump into any article he can in which he can also slam him; this time it is by equating whining with overt action rather than addressing the subject from a libertarian perspective.
That critique glossed over the fact that Supreme Court term limits have attracted support from legal scholars on the right as well as the left…the Biden-appointed Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States noted that "both liberal and conservative constitutional scholars" have advocated term limits.
Hmm, following the constitution as written, or following the opinions of contemporary legal Top Men?
BTW, remember who else was marketed as a “constitutional scholar”?
Sullum is TDS obsessed trash. If there’s a Trump hit piece here, there’s at least a 30% chance he wrote it. Which is saying something.
The lame duck Democrat president proposes to change the Supreme Court tenure system because the court has the first solid non-Leftist majority since FDR threatened to pack the Court, and the Left is angry about it, because the devil forbid progressivism be ratcheted back. The Democrats regard the pre New Deal constitutional check and balances between the federal branches of government and the states as "extremism", but the most important thing about the whole radical proposal is that Trump might not be principled in his criticism of it according to Sullum. I wonder if, once Trump has left the political stage, if writers like Sullum will be able to analyze an issue on its own merits rather than on whether Trump is for or gainst it? As of right now, Sullum is rather useless.
He's still a partisan progressive. His post-Trump takes might be a bit less hysterical, but to him the right is always wrong/evil while the left is a bit off the mark
Just look at the ramping up of rhetoric against Republicans over the last 40 years and you know it isn't ratcheting down. Should Vance be VP he'll be declared the antichrist for saying good morning (and not in a Nancy Pelosi glitch way).
but to him the right is always wrong/evil while the left is a bit off the mark
Cosmotarian philosophy in a nutshell.
As usual, Sullum could not simply defend his own position on the issue, he made the issue solely about politics and aimed his criticism not on Trump's position, but on Trump's motivation for his position. Motivations aren't shit because for politicians the only real motivation is getting elected and staying in power.
There is a name for principled politicians who maintain their views independent of, and even in opposition to, the "standard" viewpoint. That name is "unelectable". That's not their fault, it's the fault of Sullum and the rest of the "argument ad hominem" gang who only care about who's speaking, not what they're saying.
Although Trump echoes that last concern, his sincerity is open to question. After all, this is the same politician who provoked a public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts by suggesting that federal judges reflexively side with the party of the presidents who appoint them.
Look at this fucking liar. Sullum's own link is to an article about CHUCK SCHUMER being rebuked by CJ Roberts. Oh, you mean the buried lede that Trump said "Obama judge"?
Trump criticized mostly lower court judges and their decisions with juvenile taunts but defends SCOTUS from Democrat's attacks, while Schumer threatened Government action against the Supreme Court. Totally the same thing.
Oh wait, it's always (D)ifferent.
To be fair, Chuck Schumer really just encouraged private citizens to murder right leaning justices like Kavanaugh. It's not government action. The only government action is letting out previous shooters of conservatives. They let Hinkley out in 2022. They clearly let a kid know a certain rooftop wouldn't be watched. It's more that they promise a lack of action against people that conduct violence on their behalf, or that any punishment will be cut short.
"correspondence between electoral outcomes"
Is the real driver here. The only material change will be how the hysteria over upcoming court appointments plays into American elections.
Biden's parting insult to the American system of government is to further politicize the Court's as he did almost forty years ago when he was on the Senate Judiciary committee and helped invent "Borking".
I read about it in google news yesterday
Several commenters have made the very legitimate point that politicians only seem to want Supreme Court term limits when the balance of the court favors their opponents. Thus any Constitutional amendment or Congressional measure to impose such limits automatically has the opposition of about half of Congress. Yet many of us think that term limits would be a good idea in general.
To get around this problem, why not include a provision in the amendment or legislation so that the term limits don’t go into effect until some span of years has passed after its ratification—say, ten or twenty years in the future? At that point, the longest-serving justice would step down and be replaced by a new appointee (with Senate confirmation, of course); and we’d continue thus until all of the Justices were serving 18-year terms, with one term expiring every two years.
Since no one knows what the balance of the Court will look like in 2050, Congressmen could cast their votes based on the pros and cons of term limits, without regard to how the measure would affect their party’s interests in the near term.
I would say - what is the problem with the court right now that they are trying to solve? How would term limits solve it?
I think the problem is just 'they won't rule the way *we* want them to'. Term limits won't solve that. So even if they implement term limits, it comes back to the same problem - so they're just gonna throw something else out there (probably court-packing).
Best to just nip this in the bud. Especially as there's no evidence term limits would in any way make the court 'better' or even 'different'. Just faster turnover. That's only a 'good' thing if you expect to control the government forever and thus want your opposition purged ASAP.
I do not see how any one politician can predict how this would turn out, for or against their party, at some future date. In that sense it is similar to the "nuclear option" that came around [quite quickly] to bite the Dems on their collective asses.
Basically the core of the Democratic Party is pissed at the court's recent decisions, and this is just more politicking.
When Democrats lose under constitional rules that is when Democrats demand that the rules must be changed to advantage them.
When
Democratseither team lose under constitional rules that is whenDemocratseither team demand that the rules must be changed to advantage them.there, fixed it for ya
Really, when?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
Either team?? Per the wisdom of Sarcasmic, Biden respects the constitution, so better check your facts there, guy.
What a fvckin dipshit gaslighter.
Change SCOTUS
Change the EC
Change the Senate
Change the BOR
All of these come solely from your team
You didn’t fix anything Fatfuck.
Sullum is a TDS-addled slimy pile of shit; anything he posts regarding Trump can be ignored along with most of the rest of his bullshit.
FOAD, asshole.
'Under Biden's proposal, which copies the most frequently discussed version of this reform, justices would serve staggered 18-year terms, and each president would have a chance to appoint one every two years.'
Sounds just like the sort of "fair" politically-managed government process that would appeal to Reason liberaltarians.
"Trump values X only when it benefits him"
Nice man bites dog story you have here. Why even write this?
isnt that a Dog Bites Man story?
as in - nothing special.
Now, if it was a headline I think i remember from the movie The Forbidden Zone "Man Bites Dog, Then Bites Self"
THAT would be more deserving of attention.
You are a clown Sullum , a deranged buffoon. Stick to drugs and guns and leave politics to the adults. Your hypocrisy is staggering.
Structure is what matters in our republic: balance and the separation of powers. Biden’s crowd wants to dilute and control all of it. It’s what statists do-and SCOTUS as constituted is screwing up their Brave New World.
Deal with it, losers.
Don’t believe for a moment their noise about the democratic value or social virtue of limited judicial terms, which, btw, is a real hoot coming from a five-decade political hack who sought to rule by basement dementia.
To subvert Scalia’s phrase, this exercise is a wolf clad in sheep’s clothing. Trump isn’t the issue here, and never will be. The issue is the democrats ( again) trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, pun intended.
Trump himself is hardly a consistent defender of judicial independence, which he values only when it leads to outcomes he likes.
It's honestly mindboggling to me why more folks on the progressive/hard left don't like the guy. I mean, this is their bread and butter right here.
>Trump Values Judicial Independence Only When It Benefits Him
His criticism of President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reform is hard to take seriously.
Yeah, we should vote Harris then. Because she's only been part of a cover-up of the President's condition, a President who openly violated court rulings under the logic that he 'could get something done before the courts catch up'.
Reluctantly but strategically . . .
Trump - who abided by USSC decision (where Brandon does not) - criticizes a plan by Brandon to destroy the court and the through-line Sullum takes is Trump is bad for criticizing this because Trump also doesn't like it when the court rules against him? Even though, to reiterate - Trump abides by USSC decisions whereas Brandon does not?
Are you seriously introducing facts in a political argument? Don't you realize that facts are "triggering" to Sullum?
I mean feth - **I* only like the courts and cops when they do things that benefit me.
The next Amendment to the Constitution should dissolve the Supreme Court, the House and the Senate and give all power to the executive branch, not to the president who should be preserved as target practice for assassins, but to nameless “experts” whose identities must never be known.
Rule by Ghost Elites, the perfect union of unaccountability, insanity and power.
We don't need an Amendment for that. We've already got it!
Well that just sounds like the European Union.
"we should be wary of changing a system that has functioned well for hundreds of years"
Of course this is a matter of opinion. MY opinion is that it has NOT functioned well at any time in the last hundred years. On the other hand, there is no evidence that term limits for Supreme Court justices would make the Supreme Court function well or even just better at this point in history. A list of problems with the Supreme Court would include legislation from the bench to implement judicial activist social engineering experiments; tortured legal arguments in outrageously lengthy opinions to appear to be justifying pre-conceived conclusions in support of the outcome the Justices wanted to arrive at whether consistent with or supported by the plain intent and language of the Constitution or not; and the refusal to take up appeals that clearly raise serious Constitutional issues in need of a ruling from the Supreme Court!
Could someone name anyone in US politics who actually defends any of their supposed "principles" even when there's some kind of personal or political cost attached?
How big is the overlap between the people whose mantra is "my body my choice", and the ones who demanded a nationwide mandate for kids wanting to attend public grade schools being required to have multiple doses of a "vaccine" for Covid-19 which never had any data indicating that it prevented anything other than the symptoms of the virus, even after the data showed that at least 75% had already had the virus and that "breakthrough" infections were incredibly common? How many of them also support legal restrictions on soda sizes, or trans-fats?
How many on the left won't allow malnourished people in Asia to get vitamin supplementation from "golden rice" because of the supposedly unknown dangers of GMO "frankenfoods" but also demanded federal mandates for people in the USA to submit to dosages of MRNA compounds without long term data or full FDA approval which were designed to modify the chemical operation of cells within their own body to produce an unnatural and alien protien?
I don't know of anyone who ever thought that trump had any real principles going back to 2015, but that's hardly a trait that distinguishes him from the rest of the crowd in D.C.
“I don’t know of anyone who ever thought that trump had any real principles going back to 2015, but that’s hardly a trait that distinguishes him from the rest of the crowd in D.C.”
It distinguishes Trump because he doesn’t pretend to have certain principles.
He really is the most transparent President ever.
Even bullets pass right through him! (well, his ear)
Yes! But it's true for politicians of both parties! They're like petulant children who want the rules changed when the game doesn't go their way. And too many voters go right along for the ride.
Stuff your 'both sides' up your ass, shit-pile.
Trump managed to live the rules overall. Biden has not, and neither has Kamala. Trump is preferable for that, and a whole host of other reasons.
But, but, but... what about 30x times a felon!!!!
...or did that talking point quit working? I haven't heard people trotting it out too often anymore
Politician likes Court that agrees with him and criticizes Court that disagrees with him.
Water wet. Sun hot. Sullum dimwit.