The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
On the Biden/Harris Court "Reforms"
So much for constitutional norms
New from me in The Dispatch is a breakdown of the administration's newly announced "reforms" for the U.S. Supreme Court. The announcement is remarkably light on details, and there are better and worse directions that the Democrats could go with this. So far the Biden/Harris team has declined to endorse the progressives' most favored proposal of expanding the size of the Supreme Court, but even this is a big shift to the left by the White House as we head into the 2024 elections and a clear signal that radical attacks on the Court will be on the agenda if the Democrats manage to claim both Congress and the White House.
Yet another reminder that for those who care about constitutional government, there are no good choices on the ballot this year.
From the piece:
As a matter of constitutional norms, a statutory term of service under current circumstances would in fact be a serious challenge to judicial independence. The current White House is not shying away from saying that it wants to shuffle justices off the court because it is unhappy with the substance of its decisions. Perhaps there could be a neutral rationale for setting a mandatory retirement age to avoid the problem of infirm judges—but there is nothing politically neutral about current proposals. They recall how a leader of the Jeffersonian senators once told John Quincy Adams that Federalist judges needed to be impeached because, "we want your offices, for the purposes of giving them to men who will fill them better."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
the sub headline spells it out :
"Biden’s SCOTUS reform proposal puts activist demands over constitutional norms."
There is a certain amount of whose ox is being gored here, but that aside, on the merits, I think both term limits and an enforceable code of ethics are good policy. There is a history of Supreme Court justices of both parties staying on long after they should have gone, and judges should be held to an ethical standard. Lower court judges already are, and it strikes me as bizarre that a lower court judge would be held to a higher standard than a Supreme Court justice.
In order to avoid another Merrick Garland situation, I would also propose a change to Senate confirmation procedure under which a nominee is deemed confirmed if there has not been a vote within a reasonable period of time, say six months. That way, if there is a specific objection to a specific nominee he or she can be voted down, but there won't be obstructionism just for the sake of obstructionism. And I think that could be accomplished by a simple change to the Senate rules without the need of a constitutional amendment.
So change the Constitution or shut up.
The Constitution would only need to be changed with respect to the first one — term limits — as there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids Supreme Court justices being subjected to a code of ethics.
I am looking forward to hearing Republicans argue that term limits and codes of ethics are bad ideas. Bumble, do you think those are bad ideas, or are you just being your usual contrarian self?
What gives Congress the right to proscribe ethics to the two other branches of government? Should they be able to impose a code of ethics on the president and the executive branch?
OK, so you're not disagreeing with me that a code of ethics would be good policy; you're just offended that in the face of the Court's refusal to police itself, Congress would be stepping in.
And Congress already has imposed ethics on the executive branch by criminalizing federal officials taking bribes. Do you object to that as well? Granted, this proposed reform would be civil rather than criminal but I don't see that as making a relevant difference.
When something is within the ambit of one branch, that branch failing to act does not place it within the authority of another branch to do. Often people exercise power in the negative, by deciding NOT to do something others think they should.
So, just as the failure of Congress to enact a law doesn't authorize the executive branch to invent one itself, the failure of a 'co-equal' branch to police its own ethics doesn't license another branch to do so in its stead.
Criminal law is rather distinct from "ethics", though you'd LIKE to think all crimes were ethical violations. You'd like to think that, but a lot of them aren't. Congress can, of course, enact laws that bind the other two branches, as long as it avoids trying to dictate their exercise of core constitutional powers allocated to them, not Congress.
"just as the failure of Congress to enact a law doesn’t authorize the executive branch to invent one itself"
But in 2020 Kamala Harris said that if Congress does not act within 100 days, she (if elected) would have the authority to issue an executive order.
She's a lawyer and everything, and you're not, so there.
Yes, and Obama did the same before her.
I fully expect that, if she gets elected, she's going to try to rule through executive branch dictates, rather than legislation, and the usual posters here will have all sorts of excuses for why doing so isn't dictatorial.
1. The presidents of either parties try to rule thru executive dictates. This is both because Congress is a disfuntional mess and any president of any party wants the power to act unimpeded. That’s simple human nature. They push the boundaries as far as they go.
2. This – of course – includes Trump. As I recall, he stole congressionally appropriated monies for a use Congress refused to fund.
3. Claiming one side does it exclusively and that rises to the heights of “dictator” means you’re either blinded by partisanship or very much uninformed. Both sides do it, including mine.
And there are almost always lawyers on both sides of a court case - and about half those lawyers lose. So being a lawyer isn't very predictive of what is "right" and "wrong" in the eyes of the law.
Whether one branch's failure to act empowers another depends on the circumstances; sometimes yes and sometimes no. But if a branch refuses to police itself, it really has no cause for complaint if the other branches act. This is a problem the Court could fix very easily simply by enacting its own enforceable code of ethics. It just doesn't want to. So cry me a river when someone else than does (or attempts to do) its job for it.
"Yes, but ...."
No. No buts. The other branches have to butt out, it is literally none of their business. Go ahead and justify any code of ethics imposed on the President by Congress beyond misdemeanors and high crimes.
Or imagine a President setting up an enforceable code of ethics for Congress. It just ain't gonna fly.
Congress doesn’t need to go beyond misdemeanors and high crimes because they get to define them.
If the House and Senate were to agree by concurrent resolution on constraints on the President’s pardon power, and that they will use the impeachment power to enforce those constraints, what could the other branches do about it? Concurrent resolutions aren’t law so the President doesn’t get to veto them and the Court doesn’t apply them. The President might challenge a Senate conviction under those circumstances but what would the current Court do given its recently expressed respect for the core constitutional powers of other branches?
Your assertion carries no legal weight. You may as well bring in police shipping Congress Critters off in railway cars.
The Senate has the "sole Power" to try impeachments, and how they choose to exercise that power is not subject to judicial review (Nixon v. United States, 506 US 224 (1993)). The concurrent resolution avoids due process issues by providing fair warning that, e.g., impeachable offenses include a Presidential self-pardon. No constitutional amendment required.
How they exercise it damned well would be subject to judicial review if they tried, for instance, circumventing the supermajority vote in the Senate. But I doubt a court would have the nerve to dispute whether the impeachment charges were actually high crimes or misdemeanors.
Where did you even begin to get that idea from? Why do you think rules for how the courts operate are none of the business of Congress? Huge swaths of the U.S. Code prescribe such rules. Is 28 U.S.C. § 445 unconstitutional in your mind?
How many time do I have to post this? Again...
So, Article 3 explicitly gives Congress, without limit, the authority to “ordain and establish” the framework, rules, and practices of the federal judiciary system, including SCOTUS when exercising “appellate Jurisdiction” (that is, any case not involving formally appointed representatives of other countries, or U.S. States as a party”) “…with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
And, indeed, as Nieporent points out, they already have...
So, Article 3 explicitly gives Congress, without limit, the authority to “ordain and establish” the framework, rules, and practices of the federal judiciary system, including SCOTUS when exercising “appellate Jurisdiction”
Your gloss amends the text. The "ordain and establish" thing applies only to the inferior courts, not to the Supreme Court.
The reach of Congress's authority as regards the Supreme Court is limited to "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make” to its appelate jurisdiction."
On its face such exceptions and regulations apply only to the Supreme Court as a body, not to the individual Justices which compose it. You might infer that it extends to individual Justices, but it would be an extratextual inference.
So, as to the actual statute that you quote, it is doubtful that it can in fact apply to a SCOTUS Justice because it is a regulation about the conduct of individual Justices not a regulation about the exercise of the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
I don't say that you couldn't argue the contrary case, merely that it's by no mean the slam dunk that you think it is.
I’m offended by the persistent efforts of the left to destroy our institutions under the guise of protecting them.
Sorry, Riva, but you've got that a little backwards. The Supreme Court -- thanks mainly to Alito and Thomas -- is destroying itself. Since it's obvious the Court will never take steps to rescue itself, someone has to step in.
And yet, the approval ratings for the Supreme Court remain, what, double? triple? those of either Congress or the Presidency. If either Congress or the Executive branch think ethics are a problem, they should clean their own houses before thinking about meddling in someone else's.
The Supreme Court approval ratings are declining nearly as fast as religion in modern America.
This suggests many Americans are interested in Supreme Court reform.
The Supreme Court is not destroying itself simply because it issues opinions with which you or the left happens to disagree.
The Supreme Court is destroying itself because some of its members are unethical, greedy jerks; because a majority of its current members are disaffected from the modern American mainstream; and because its better members are unwilling to address the problems generated by its lesser members.
So better Americans will do it for them.
Alito and Thomas are grifters who lack a basic concept of ethics. And Roberts lacks the leverage to get them under control. Pathetic. Would you trust this Supreme Court to rule on a legal matter involving you or your family? I wouldn't.
Good thing the country isn't governed by your standards of ethics or judicial tenure.
Hopefully they'd at least prescribe ethics, rather than proscribing them.
Doh!
The Constitution says that judges shall hold their office "during good behavior" presumably Congress has the power to define "good behavior" just as they have the power to define "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Of course relying on that clause leaves impeachment as their only enforcement mechanism, so it's an all or nothing deal, Congress either removes them from the bench or doesn't, I don't think there's much room for sanctions.
That's just it; if a justice commits an ethical violation they are, by definition, not holding their office during good behavior. And I think if the only possible sanction were removal, that would require impeachment.
But there are other lesser sanctions that I think could be imposed, such as a fine. I know some have argued that a fine would be a diminution in salary but I think that argument is nonsense on stilts. They've already received their full salary; they've just acquired a financial obligation, due to their own misconduct. Otherwise every fine would be a diminution in salary. Can a Supreme Court justice not be ticketed for speeding on a federal road?
I think that argument is nonsense on stilts. They’ve already received their full salary; they’ve just acquired a financial obligation, due to their own misconduct. Otherwise every fine would be a diminution in salary. Can a Supreme Court justice not be ticketed for speeding on a federal road?
We did this before. A speeding fine is not imposed by the employer on the employee, qua employee, for a failure, as perceived by the employer, in the conduct of his employment. A fine imposed on a SC Justice for breaching a judicial code of conduct checks all of those boxes.
Now if you had a special speeding fine, imposed by the Army, on Army employed drivers, for speeding on an Army base ( outside the scope of generaly applicable federal law for federal roads) while driving an Army vehicle – then that would be a deduction from the driver’s wages. But it wouldn’t matter because there’s no rule in the constitution preventing Army drivers’ compensation being reduced.
We did this before in the sense that you're making the same silly arguments you made last time we had this conversation. Whether the fine is imposed by the employer depends on how broadly you define employer. Since I specified a federal road (say on a military base), is the employer the Department of Defense, or the entire federal government? I say the Justice is employed by the Supreme Court and the fine is imposed by Treasury, and that fixes the problem (if it even was a problem to begin with).
You're coming up with lame excuses to avoid having a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices. You just don't want one. Noted.
Noted my ass! You cannot justify inter-branch ethics enforcement.
Of course I can. That's the whole point of checks and balances. If one branch goes off the rails, the others have a duty to step in.
The branches do constrain each other routinely; this is not a new concept. This is a discussion about where that line is to be drawn, and not whether the line exists.
" You cannot justify inter-branch ethics enforcement. "
You might wish to take another crack at that one.
Unless you are just flailing for short-term partisan purpose.
I remember when the Dems went nuts when Bush sent the FBI into that Representative’s office who was nailed for bribery and had cash in his freezer.
Even spent months negotiating with the House leadership (GOP at the time) to get their approval to enter.
And that is for a branch where a member had undeniably committed crimes.
If the Treasury has the power to impose fines on employees of other parts of the federal government, in respect of their conduct as employees of those other parts, then "the employer" is the federal government as a whole.
So, if Clarence Thomas decides to read his opinions buck naked at the court he can't be charged with violating DC public nudity law?
There is no punishment suitable enough to impose on you for attempting to plant that image in our minds.
"So, if Clarence Thomas decides to read his opinions buck naked at the court . . . "
Justice Thomas would never do that.
He doesn't want the public to know about his cilice.
(It's likely the same with Alito. Chain, probably, rather than hairsuit.)
So, is there going to be a trial before this fine, or is it going to be some unappealable administrative penalty levied by some equally-or-more corrupt Ethics Board made up of political appointees?
But anyway, I don't think fines are what supporters of this proposal are planning. It's not like they believe scoring $5K off of Thomas is good trade for Dobbs or Shelby County. They're thinking the punishment should be stripping of jurisdiction, just for that judge. Maybe even retroactive....
5,000 probably won't pay the gas bill for the RV!
Stripping of jurisdiction would obviously require impeachment and if anyone is proposing that, I would agree it's unconstitutional. I don't see a fine as having the same problem, for reasons I just articulated to in my response to Lee Moore.
And I would make the amount of the fine double whatever the justice received in benefits.
As to the mechanics, those would have to be worked out, but I would see something similar to what happens with lower court justices -- you could appoint a special master, or you could randomly appoint a federal judge to hear it, or maybe even have a court that specially sits for that purpose like the FISA court. There are options.
Stripping of jurisdiction would obviously require impeachment.
Not you, but there are plenty of people saying Congress has the power to limit jurisdiction of federal courts, and that the lifetime appointment only refers to the title and the salary, not entitlement to hear any particular case. The code word used for this strategy is “senior status”. As in, a judge who did 18 years or had X number of ethics violations would be moved to senior status.
As to the mechanics
The mechanics are the whole point of this proposal. Congress can certainly pass a law saying that taking large gifts is a crime, even a “high crime and misdemeanor”. But then the only enforcement routes are getting a criminal conviction and impeachment, and those are felt to be too hard by those who are targeting Clarence Thomas for his vacation and Samuel Alito for having a wife who exercises her freedom of speech.
So, you have an “ethics code” instead of an ordinary statute, and since it’s not going to impose criminal penalties, you can get around that whole due process of law thing. Which is the entire point of this proposal – to construct a way to shut down a justice without needing a unanimous jury or 2/3 of the Senate.
Try imposing those lesser sanctions on the President. Do you really think any court would approve Congress fining the President, or the President fining Congress?
What makes judges so less independent?
Yeah, I had considered theu could sanction with a fine, but that just means a Justice with enough money could do whatever they wanted.
I suppose they could also implement a strike system, 3 ethical violations within a time period means impeachment, or something like that.
So, is anyone going to actually answer Krychek's question of whether term limits and a code of ethics are bad policy for Justices, or just keep saying "they're not constitutional?"
Of course they're not going to answer it. Don't be silly.
It's a fine idea.
Congress needs it infinitely more.
Will be happy to consider ONCE they pass Congressional term limits.
If they’re unconstitutional then they violate the highest expression of policy. That would be the constitution. To entrust the present day left with revising that policy would be like trusting one’s private parts to the care of a Mexican cartel.
That's not how the constitution and policy work, bot. It's as if you say changing the way NFL kickoffs should be done is unthinkable because of the current NFL kickoff rules.
So you don’t believe the constitution is the highest expression of policy? Not really sure what you’re challenging sport. I doubt you do either since the best you can do is parrot childish insults like some moronic ventriloquist dummy. I guess though this might qualify you for a media job, if nothing else.
Do you know why so many people call you a bot? It's because you don't seem to register what a reply says to you in your replies back. Now, maybe take a minute and re-read my comment directly above yours here and try to reply like a thoughtful human might.
Nope. Because you lack the intelligence to effectively respond to comments you dislike, you resort to parroting a childish insult. Kind of disappointing. Come back to me when, and if, you have an original thought. Even an original insult would show something. Like I’ve commented before, it’s good thing democrats cheat well, other wise you morons would never win an election.
That and it seems you and other losers here are extremely threatened by any viewpoints challenging your little leftist world views. Hence the effort at using belittling insults.
Are you guys claiming this Riva account is bot and sold?
It is appropriate that this specific unbalanced loser is on the side of Malika. Who knows, could be an alias?
He's asking a strawman question. No one says a code of ethics is immoral. The question is one of inter-branch enforcement.
Name one possible enforcement action the President could impose on Congress.
Name one possible enforcement action Congress could impose on the President, other than impeachment.
You cannot.
Yet you think Congress can impose any enforcement action it wants on judges, outside of impeachment.
Article V or go home. It cannot be done.
That's not a stawman. There's two questions:
1. Would these be good ideas if allowed?
2. Are they allowed?
You're answering 1 by pointing to your answer to 2.
Strawman, brickman, stupidman, it doesn't matter. It cannot be done.
Answer the substance or admit you have no answer. Stop quibbling like a lawyer.
Why not just answer whether term limits and an enforceable ethics code are positive goals? You’ve wiggled about so much, it reminds me of trying to hold an eel while you get the hook out. (slimy creatures, eels).
Let’s try this : You are an important vote in deciding a constitutional amendment on these two issues. Which way do you vote and why?
Note : I fully expect you can evade that question framing too, but it will be entertaining to watch you do so.
They may or may not be positive goals; that is not what I am arguing and it is not what you are dodging.
Yep. Entertaining it was....
You're the one evading the substance.
The question is "if these were possible, are the substance of them good ideas?"
And you're pounding the table in response "these are not possible!"
Why is it immaterial that the goals are not possible?
Only a politician tries to do the impossible. Only a lawyer would floor the accelerator before hitting a brick wall. Was that legislator in Indiana who tried to define Pi as 3 one of your ancestors?
A criminal charge?
I do wonder how Civil Service laws have any legitimate allowance to exist given that it is pure interference on how the Executive branch runs itself (and has made the government run more corruptly than it did before)
They’re not inherently bad policies in the abstract.
What’s bad is engineering policies for the open purpose of going after judges who have displeased you, or getting particular judicial decisions overturned.
(Similarly, there’s nothing holy about nine vs thirteen vs any other number of judges. What’s wrong is jacking with the number to outvote justices you don’t like.)
The way to overcome those concerns is to: (a) not apply the term limits to any currently sitting justice, or start the cycle several presidential terms in the future, and (b) make it clear that overturning an SC decision can never be any part of the remedies provided in the ethics code.
On top of that, what Alphabet said. Do a constitutional amendment, otherwise we’ll just be fighting over the term lengths and specifics of the ethics code, their constitutionality, and the means of enforcement, forever.
See, now here's a thoughtful, reasonable answer.
But I'd say that it's completely reasonable that the ethics thing is not so much motivated by any particular justice ruling in any particular way, but rather could be in response to the reporting of justices doing ethically questionable things (sure, the motivating behind the reporting could be ideological, but once it's out there it's not necessarily so to be like "huh, yeah, I don't think high government officials should have billionaires giving them a bunch of gifts").
"What’s bad is engineering policies for the open purpose of going after judges who have displeased you, or getting particular judicial decisions overturned."
While it is true that both parties tend to be more concerned about things like ethics and term limits when the other is in power, I think that can be separated from the question of whether it's good policy, and we don't need to wait to implement good policy until the other side is in power.
At some point, Democrats will again have a majority on the Supreme Court, at which point Republicans will suddenly develop the same concerns they're opposing now. I think the solution is to write objectively good policies that should apply with equal force to both sides.
I think the solution is to write objectively good policies that should apply with equal force to both sides.
What possible reason would the Frog team have for believing that the Scorpion team would stick to the policy when it had the majority ?
Term limits and a code of ethics are bad policy for Justices 🙂
Actually I don't have major objections to term limits (subject to the details) - but I will mention some of the cons to be taken into consideration.
(a) turfing a Justice out while he or she is mentally sound, highly experienced and delivering solid honest legal work is a waste of scarce talent and experience
(b) if the argument is about senility then it's an age limit or a mental test you want, not a time limit
(c) time limits will necessarily increase turnover on the court, and consequently speed up the rate of overturning precedents. The law will thus become somewhat more uncertain
(d) a Justice who believes his or her job is to bend the law in a particular direction will be more impatient and less cautious if there's a time limit, leading to more bad law
As for codes of ethics - they're just an end run around Congress's sole impeachment power, and a political threat to hold over the heads of Justices to influence their independence. Such a code is simply another means to adjust the court arithmetic. The Justices should be guided by their own consciences unless and until they do something naughty enough to get Congress to wield its impeachment power. If they do something that does not offend Congress enough to impeach, but which offends Krychek and the New York Times, I think that Kryckek and the NYT should be encouraged learn to live with it.
However, in the spirit of compromise, I might reluctantly be prepared to accept a code of ethics (enforceable) provided that the Justice himself is entitled to appoint a temporary substitute, while he is suspended. This would prevent the ethics code from serving as an arithmetic adjusting scheme, and would consequently reduce the number of ethics complaints by 99%.
The quid pro quo that I require for this enormous concession is that if the Justice is actually impeached, then he still gets to appoint his replacement, for the rest of his term. (ie the original Justice's life, or limited term if we have term limits.)
"turfing a Justice out while he or she is mentally sound, highly experienced and delivering solid honest legal work is a waste of scarce talent and experience"
All general policies will have costs (turfing a mentally sound, highly experienced justice) and benefits (barring those whose capacities have diminished from one of the most powerful jobs in our republic).
"if the argument is about senility then it’s an age limit or a mental test you want, not a time limit"
Sure, it's a proxy. We do that often in the Constitution (the age thresholds for holding certain office for example).
"a Justice who believes his or her job is to bend the law in a particular direction will be more impatient and less cautious if there’s a time limit, leading to more bad law"
Perhaps, but maybe not more likely than a senile judge.
As to impeachment alone, it's for getting rid of a justice or judge. Are you really comfortable that there's nothing to be done for anything below that? I mean, these people are not, like the other branches, subject to regular elections to be rebuked.
What about a code of ethics enforced by a bipartisan committee which could, at the worse, issue a public censure of the judicial official? A public pronouncement and opinion that they violated the code.
What about a code of ethics enforced by a bipartisan committee which could, at the worse, issue a public censure of the judicial official? A public pronouncement and opinion that they violated the code.
Bad idea, but it's entirely constitutional. Congress can do what it likes as regards grandstanding.
A 'bipartsan committee" of course would be no such thing. It would be a bunch of hacks at least as ethically challeneged as its target, with its ears tuned to the roar of the crowd. Moreover if it had investigatory powers, it would be deploying the usual process-is-the-punishment schtik. Horrible idea.
"A ‘bipartsan committee” of course would be no such thing. It would be a bunch of hacks at least as ethically challeneged as its target, with its ears tuned to the roar of the crowd. Moreover if it had investigatory powers, it would be deploying the usual process-is-the-punishment schtik. Horrible idea."
Wow, cynic, much?
Why would it necessarily "be a bunch of hacks at least as ethically challeneged as its target, with its ears tuned to the roar of the crowd" somehow unlike an impeachment majority (your only offered solution)?
Well the House and the Senate are a bunch of hacks, but you do need to get two thirds of the Senate hacks to agree to get a conviction.
What’s the benefit of concocting a different “bipartisan” bunch of hacks for ethics breaches, even if you keep the two thirds requirement ?
.
Well the House and the Senate are a bunch of hacks,
Do you consider Supreme Court justices to be less hackish than senators?
(Or merely six of the current justices?)
We have an example in the FEC of a bipartisan enforcement mechanism. Democrats routinely complain that the requirement for bipartisan agreement prevents it from functioning in areas where the parties actually disagree.
I can't see the present Democratic party agreeing to the creation of a similar setup for an ethics committee.
All general policies will have costs
Sure, I am glad that we can agree on that point.
But the question of whether we should proceed with term limits for SCOTUS Justices, in preference to the lack of term limits, involves totting up ALL the pros and cons of the particular term limit plan proposed and ALL the pros and cons of the lack of term limits.
I am merely offering a short term limit con list. Term limit puffers (generally) merely recite a list of pros. The question is much richer in detail than that.
It should also be noted that the pros and cons of the current system are well known, precisely because it is the current system. The pros and cons of any particular term limit system are speculative. We haven’t seen it in action.
I confess i am sceptical about term limits because I am aware that most of those who puff them are motivated primarily by partisan interest - ie they hate the current make up of the court, and anything must be better than that.
My own primary con for the current system of no time limits is that I think power tends to corrupt, and SCOTUS Justices have a lot of power. Justice Thomas has wielded this power for nearly 33 years. IMHO he has been, and continues to be an excellent, intellectually honest, Justice, and the "ethics complaints" against him are, as the President would put it - "malarkey." He hasn't showed any signs of power going to his head. Which makes him exceptional.
But in general, 33 years wielding that kind of power - I don't like it.
Three points.
First, I don't think the only alternatives should be nothing or the nuclear option of impeachment. There will be situations in which a middle ground solution is called for, and such a solution should be available when appropriate.
Second, I really don't like the idea of Congress imposing an ethical code on the court either, but that solution could be fixed by the court imposing one on its own. Maybe this conversation will spur the court to act, making this discussion moot.
Third, Lee, I think the idea of allowing a justice who has provably behaved unethically to name his own replacement is a really bad idea. For one thing, he's already demonstrated poor decisionmaking skills where ethics are concerned. Second, what's to stop him from trying to derail the process by naming a replacement no one could stomach? Maybe some failed solo practitioner who got disbarred for stealing client funds. No, if he's going down on ethical charges, he's the last person who should have a say. Maybe the senior justice of his party could make such an appointment.
I am willing to take your deal. No replacement right, no ethics code 🙂
Where did my deal include no ethics code?
You rejected my offer. Which leaves us at the status quo.
Until better Americans are positioned to do something about this.
At which point your offers to compromise will be irrelevant.
As an example, I don't think there's anything in the constitution about Congress censuring the President. But it's a thing.
Why couldn't a code of ethics for the judiciary be the same kind of thing?
Now, as far as I know, Biden didn't and hasn't talked about that. But he's not the sharpest tack and has never has been. But that's no reason why others can't talk about it.
Many of the things listed in Krychek's comment require no Constitutional amendment. Also, how do you amend the Constitution without first talking about proposals as opposed to shutting up?
K2's proposal is a change in confirmation procedure whereby no vote within x time period would constitute a deemed confirmation. Its doubtful that the senate taking no action would satisfy the constitutional requirement of advise and consent of the senate.
Article 2, section 2, second paragraph - “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court,”
It would be constructive consent. Which could easily be avoided by having a vote on the nomination.
Also easily avoided by the Senate making a Senate rule to the effect that any Presidential nominee not confirmed within 110 days of nomination is constructively refused confirmation, and the President shall be notified accordingly.
Simply a mirror to your proposal to a change of Senate rules to provide constructive confirmation.
Sure, either of those would work if the goal is to avoid obstructionism. But I think the better policy is to deem confirmation because that's the direction from which obstructionism most often comes.
It is the Senate's job to obstruct nominees it does not wish to confirm. That's why it has the advice and consent job.
And if it doesn't like a nominee it should vote him down. Not just hide behind inaction.
"Not just hide behind inaction."
Inaction is often just negative action.
The GOP caucus empowered Mitch to just ignore the nomination, he didn't unilaterally do so. There was a perceived political benefit to doing so.
That's their choice, not yours, not some rule that can be changed on a whim.
The Senate, as a body, acts by voting. Any other approach is a way for the leadership to deprive individual Senators of their own constitutional share of the body's power.
Where I practice, the courts have a conceptually similar rule with respect to motions. If I file a motion, the other side has so many days to file a response. If it fails to do so, the motion is deemed unopposed and I can simply send the judge a proposed order for signature.
The rationale is don't sit on your rights. If you're going to oppose something, do it. Don't just make everyone sit around waiting for you.
Confusing civil procedures with constitutional requirements.
No, recognizing that the rationale for one may apply with equal force to the other. But where does the Constitution forbid constructive consent?
I don’t believe it does, so long as it is the Senate prescribing the rules specifying how it gives consent. So the Senate can delegate the thing to a Senate committee if it chooses.
But without a constitutional amendment nobody can tell the Senate what its rules should be.
So this doesn't solve the "Garland' problem. The Senate majority can decline a nominee with a full vote, or a committee vote, or by silence. According to its rules.
PS the Garland problem isn't a problem, btw
My point, though, is that the Senate majority can change its rules. So if it wants a rule that silence equals consent, 51 senators can decide that's the new rule. No constitutional amendment necessary.
The obvious problem here is that it's just as easy to change the rule as to confirm or deny the appointment. Even if you get your new "rule", the next time a Garland shows up the Senate can just instantly change it back.
Strictly, in response to ducksalad, they would change it back long before any nominee showed up. ie suppose the Ds win Presidency and Senate and, to make a political point, change the Senate rules to the Krychek constructive consent rule. Then suppose in the midterms the GOP gets control of the Senate. They would change the rule back as soon as they got control, so that it could be presented as a point of principle, not a response to a particular nominee.
However, in practice, the Dems would not change the rule in the first place, because it does them no immediate good. They can confirm anyone they like with Presidency and Senate control. And if they lost the Presidency but held the Senate then they would want to be able to use the consent-means-a-positive-vote rule.
We see this illustrated by the Harry Reid nuclear option. The Dems only changed the rule for the nominations they wanted to move on. They didn't change the SCOTUS rule because there was no advantage in doing so - there wasn't a vacancy.
Krychek would never make a Senator. Which is much to his credit.
The "nuclear" option is actually something much less honest than a rules change: A point of order is raised concerning the rule, the Senate Parliamentarian explains the rule, and then the Senate votes that the Parliamentarian is wrong. And going forward, the rule is interpreted contrary to what it actually says.
But the rule actually continues to be worded the way it previously was, because actually CHANGING the rule is more difficult than simply getting a majority vote to pretend it means something different.
It's living constitutionalism in operation, only applied to the Senate rules rather than the Constitution.
Krychek_2 48 seconds ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“But where does the Constitution forbid constructive consent?”
how about – Article 2, section 2, second paragraph – “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court,”
Right, but it doesn't specify how the consent is to be obtained. Where does it say that consent requires an affirmative vote?
non action is not consent
Note that in Article 2, Section 7, constructive consent is actually present, and they did it by writing it into the Constitution:
"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
As a general rule, I do not believe the Constitution should be construed to authorize by mere implication in one place, what they bothered to authorize explicitly in another place. Legislation is subject to constructive approval by the President, nominations are NOT subject to constructive approval by the Senate, because the former is actually mentioned in the Constitution, and the latter, not.
In some contexts non action is absolutely consent. Have you never heard the maxim that silence equals assent?
My son has occasionally taken advantage of my advancing deafness to argue that position, (Can't refuse assent to something you didn't hear, after all!) but it hasn't worked out well for him so far.
Krychek, silence is acceptance?
News to rape victims.
No, making up strawmen.
If I take my car to a garage and they get swamped and can't fix it in time, it doesn't get magically fixed just by time elapsing.
If I propose a silly contract to some business, they are not obligated to formally tell me No. The contract does not magically come into effect by default.
If the Senate doesn't hold a vote on a bill, do you want that bill to also pass by default?
Life doesn't work that way. Nominees are nothing special. Unpopular nominees are not just a Senate problem, they are also because the nominator made an unpopular choice.
And if you give silly analogies, they're silly analogies.
And if they were that silly, they'd be easy to refute.
The fact that you prefer insults to answers is surprising honesty for which you are to be congratulated: you have no answers, and you know it.
Flat earthers are easy to refute too but I usually don't bother. Under the laws of physics, a car cannot just fix itself. Which is different from Senate procedural rules, which can be whatever a majority of the Senate thinks appropriate.
I've often felt the Senate should grow balls and vote down someone instead of delay tactics. I mentioned this several times when the Republicans delayed the Obama nom. If they want to deny, ok, that's politics. Put up or shut up, on the record.
We already confirm/deny justices on a simple majority vote with no filibuster. Obstruction requires a majority. So the "deemed confirmed" proposal doesn't get us anywhere.
I kind of like the 18 year term, as it leads to less radical shifts, and it provides less incentive to pick younger judges at the expense of experience.
Perhaps make it 24 years and apply it to both judges and congress? A one-stop constitutional amendment?
Would the term limit apply separately to each house of congress, or cumulative?
The proposals are an election year political ploy. Perfectly appropriate in a climate where consequentialists seem to rule the court exercising their political will
Hi Keith. Are you familiar with your colleague Jon Adler's writing on term limits?
While Congress can constitutionally offer Justices incentives to retire and the like, I agree actual term limits would require a constitutional amendment.
I think one of Democrats’ historical problems is thinking or at least representing that they can do anything and not attempting to think carefully about, and work with, constitutional constraints. The result is sometimes ineffectual programs that do a lot less than they were advertised to do. This may be a similar issue. The actual “term limits” provision may turn out to be a lot less than the name would imply.
At the same time, because the proposal would include a constitutional amendment for part of what they propose, they could just as well introduce additional constitutional amendments for the rest.
I think one of Democrats’ historical problems is thinking or at least representing that they can do anything and not attempting to think carefully about, and work with, constitutional constraints.
That's because they don't think there should be constitutional constraints in the first place. They get in the way. That's the whole reason why the want to "reform" the Supreme Court. It needs to have its teeth pulled. That's why the want that ol' Constitution to live and evolve without the need for those tiresome formal amendments,
A Democratic Constitution is made of putty, not of steel.
This is why Republicans want to just re-interpret things like the birthright clause rather than amend.
It's really silly to argue that both sides with so many players in any contest don't wish the rules would go away for them sometimes.
Properly enforcing that clause consistent with the constitution would not require an amendment.
But when we do it, it's right!
Hell, even Brett admits the better way would be to amend it.
I think one of Democrats’ historical problems is thinking or at least representing that they can do anything and not attempting to think carefully about, and work with, constitutional constraints.
Democrats do not think they "can do anything" and they regularly explain why what they do is constitutionally allowable.
Both parties strongly disagree on what is constitutionally allowable. To the extent government officials think they can do "anything," it's not limited to political party.
Let’s start with term limits for Congress (and/or Federal Gov't as a whole) and go from there.
Thank you. Take the continental-sized plank out of thy own eye first, Congress.
“Term limits for us Senators? Hahaha. The gravy train will end! Tell them, hmmmm...tell ’em how dare people suggest you should be thwarted if you want to re-elect a Senator you like.”
NPC (robotic voice, Nomad is a good one): How…dare…you…thwart…who…I…can…vote…for.
Congress has elections. Makes term limits hit different.
Maybe still called for (I don't think so but reasonable minds differ on this), but the direct parallel is lacking.
Congress has gerrymandering.
Voters get a chance to re-elect or not Congress every two or six years. Judges never get to face voters or Congress again.
Congress has re-election numbers that would make the old Soviet Communist Party blush.
...yet their approval is in the tank.
There are. Any member of Congress is limited to serving two years from when he's elected; any member of the Senate, six years.
"Yet another reminder that for those who care about constitutional government, there are no good choices on the ballot this year."
Absolutely. Not that this distinguishes this year from any other election year in my lifetime, once you exclude consideration of third party candidates. Except that the general trend has been for Presidential candidates, just like Congressional candidates, to have ever less concern about constitutional government.
Congress almost routinely enacts laws today that they would have admitted were unconstitutional a few decades ago.
"Vacationing with a rich private citizen"
An interesting take. Just as interesting as Prof. Whittington's decision to affiliate with a white, male, bigotry-publishing blog, and his conspicuous decision to object to plenty of things -- but never the ceaseless stream of multifaceted bigotry published at his blog.
Trump got your tongue, professor? Do you genuinely not care about intense and habitual bigotry at a blog with your name on it? Or do you support that conservative bigotry, but prefer to do so quietly?
Carry on, clinger.
Senile old man, actively being pushed out of politics after over 50 years on the government teat, NOW thinks term limits for other people are a good idea.
I'm sure the USSC will give the idea the consideration it is due.
Only one party is sticking with a senile old man right now.
I know, right?
How is that guy even allowed to be president right now?
Did he even give a reason as to why he's dropping out?
He went from "sharp as a tack" to televised doddering national embarrassment in less than 48 hours.
How'd that happen? We should be talking about the cover up, but instead I guess we're just going to blow that off.
Or at least try to.
So, Swede's solution is to back a guy who will be the oldest elected President and will be older than Biden is now when he finishes his term! So, totally not bad faith 😉
That guy dodges bullets and continues to campaign.
The other guy trips going up stairs, gets lost on stage, can't remember who he's talking to, and thinks his son died in Iraq.
Your crabapple isn't the same as my orange (see what I did there?).
Dodges bullets? Lol. You're deluded.
Neo: "What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?"
Morpheus: "No, Neo. I am trying to tell you, that when you're ready, you won't have to."
fwiw - dementia & alzheimers is fairly long time frame 4-7 years.
That sharp as a tack guy is 4-5 years into his cognitive decline
Stages of dementia life expectancy ; Stage 3: Mild cognitive decline. 2-7 years. 10 years ; Stage 4: Moderate cognitive decline. 2 years. 3 to 8 years ; Stage 5:
Stage 1 No cognitive decline N/A
Stage 2 Very mild cognitive decline Unknown
Stage 3 Mild cognitive decline 2- 4 years
Stage 4 Moderate cognitive decline 2 years
Stage 5 Moderately severe cognitive decline 1.5 years
Stage 6 Severe cognitive decline (Middle Dementia) 2.5 years
Stage 7 Very severe cognitive decline (Late Dementia) 1.5 – 2.5 years
Thanks.
There must be a new stage.
The one where you go from "sharp as a tack" to blatantly (but totally surprising) senile in 48 hours.
It happens SO fast that the cabinet, the party, the MSM, and Hollyweird are like OMG! WTF happened?!!
What do you call that stage?
They call that "a stroke".
It's hilarious to see the guys who are still backing a dude who will be *82* in his term as President this time talking about dementia.
It's not contagious.
Just because Orange Man was on stage with Malarkey Man doesn't mean Orange Man catches it.
You can't be this dumb.
It's age related.
Maybe you're in the range?
So, all old people get dementia?
There's definitely somebody dumb here and he's standing in your mirror.
Do you have dementia? Because it might explain your inability to address my point. Maybe read it again several times and try again?
Expert climatologist speaks on gerontology.
No, Swede's solution is for Trump to continue to pretend that he's running against Biden. Poor Trump is still in shock that his actual opponent is a smart, accomplished woman who will kick his ass in November. Trump is scared he will have to actually debate her because he knows she will make him look like a semi-literate, misogynistic, racist, lying bully.
I made an observation, not a solution.
However, since you're all so interested in what my solution would be...I'm sorry, what was the problem being posed?
Ah, yes: How to defeat the smart, accomplished (and apparently ass kicking) woman who will be appointed the Democrat candidate for president despite not winning a presidential primary.
Let's see...my solution...to counter how smart she is and how accomplished she is...I guess I'd probably run ads of her talking and let the word salads speak for themselves. But what else? Maybe run some adds of her supporting bailing out rioters? Yes, definitely that. What else? Maybe ads showing the millions of illegals crossing our border unopposed and with all the MSM articles pronouncing her the Border Czar? I've never run a campaign before, but I'd start with that I think. So, my solution on the fly.
Have you had a chance yet to listen to Trump make a complete ass of himself at a convention of Black journalists this afternoon? He was even dumber and more offensive than usual, and he ended up quitting early and running away with his tail between his legs when they mocked him and laughed at him. Who do you think is going to be impressed by these sort of performances by this jerk? His MAGA base? Sure. Anyone else? No. If this jackass continues to make stupid decisions such as selecting JD Vance and insulting women and minorities, he's going to lose in a landslide.
So, Swede’s solution is to back a guy who will be the oldest elected President and will be older than Biden is now when he finishes his term! So, totally not bad faith
Claiming "bad faith" on anyone else's part while continuing to parrot that "he's old" bullshit when you know full well that age is not and has never been the issue makes you a hypocrite of the highest order.
"age is not and has never been the issue makes you a hypocrite of the highest order."
What a moron.
If you can make your fingers work, try googling "Biden" + "age."
Then maybe look up the definition of "never".
What a moron.
Yes, you are in fact a moron.
If you can make your fingers work, try googling “Biden” + “age.”
If you can pull your head out of your ass, try reading the legitimate concerns about his cognitive decline, not the bullshit from your side about his age.
Why, yes, he did. He released a statement, and then gave a speech. Surprised you missed both of those things.
You're such a pathetic tool. The only reference to him dropping out in the issued statement:
And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and focus solely on ling my duties President for the remainder of my term.
No reason as to WHY him dropping out "is in the best interest" of his party and the country. So, no...he didn't indicate a reason in any meaningful sense of the word.
Are you just this needlessly angry all the time, or is it something about the Internet that does it to you?
I think you mean to say that only one party and candidate respect democratic processes. And that would not be the party that unilaterally replaces its candidate after the end of the primary process with the choice of the party elites.
No party is replacing any candidates (I think you meant to write "nominee") via "party elites." Both parties will have a nominee selected by delegates to their convention.
The delegates are the party elites.
Fulminating about a proposal even as you complain "The announcement is remarkably light on details" is amusingly overdetermined.
'This restaurant has terrible food! And the portions are so small!!'
a statutory term of service under current circumstances would in fact be a serious challenge to judicial independence
Not something I see in the fact sheet. Getting angry at something that's not been proposed is just being overdetermined.
It's fine to add an 'if' and then argue it'd be bad should this be the implementation plan. But accusing something that hasn't been done is just trying to buy trouble.
You realize this is a response to an actual article where Biden proposed exactly that, right?
...No, I hadn't clicked through.
"A group of Democratic senators led by Sheldon Whitehouse introduced arguably the most prominent version of a judicial term-limits bill, closely following a similar plan to impose term limits via a statute."
OK, so an actual thing worth pushback; I stand corrected on that.
Laying that at the feet of Biden/Harris is coming in a bit hot from the OP.
Again, the impetus for this is that Biden wrote* an op ed in the Washington Post called “My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law” that said, among other things,
So I really don’t think there’s anything out there about associating this with the administration.
*Yes, I realize Biden probably didn’t personally compose the piece. But it went out under his name and (presumably) at his direction, following multiple announcements that he would be presenting and supporting plans for reforming the Supreme Court.
“a statutory term of service under current circumstances would in fact be a serious challenge to judicial independence”
“Again” and “you realize” and “exactly that” aside, Biden did not single out one specific method of applying term limits.
A statutory term of service proposal is “arguably the most prominent version.” Supported by Sen. Whitehouse.
It is both not Biden’s proposal (it’s Whitehouse’s), it is not even the only one out there. In fact, Biden references the term limit for presidents, which was applied by amendment.
Anyway, I don’t think an extended term limit is much of a limit on judicial independence. For instance, historically, most Chief Justices had shorter than 18-year terms, except for Marshall and Taney.
“for those who care about constitutional government, there are no good choices on the ballot this year.”
Suppose that this is the case, and that such a situation basically continued indefinitely. Wouldn’t this mean that “voting” in national elections is a somewhat fruitless exercise from this point of view, and more importantly shouldn’t this lead to the realization that any sort of fix to the basic problems will never come from voting in national elections and sending people to D.C.?
Good point. I think you should stop voting in federal elections post-haste.
I have seen some argue for refraining from voting and thereby giving your consent to a broken, illegitimate, or otherwise objectionable system.
I'm not in that camp. I'm just musing over the idea that any fix to basic systemic issues will never come out of D.C. If you think you just need to "vote harder" in the next read team/blue team sporting event, that is sort of being hoodwinked and scammed.
If you think you just need to “vote harder” in the next read team/blue team sporting event, that is sort of being hoodwinked and scammed.
Oh, this I find to be quite correct. I think that many of the ways that candidates tell their potential supporters that they need to vote for them are clearly hyperbolic and even scammy. Especially fearmongering. "Vote for me or the country will turn to shit," is the most obvious scam a candidate could run.
Yes. The political spectacle of elections becomes similar to sports events with people just rooting for their team because that's their team. Bread and circuses.
Don’t worry— in four years you won’t have to vote anymore
Voting is the only method we have that guarantees any amount of influence on the government. Nothing else we could do accomplishes what voting can.
Unless, of course, you have many thousands or millions of dollars to donate to candidates, parties, and PACs. That is the one thing that could have more influence than your vote. I didn't mention that at first, because I assume that anyone with that kind of money to spend on politics finds more productive things to do with their time than posting comments on a blog.
“Voting is the only method we have that guarantees any amount of influence on the government. Nothing else we could do accomplishes what voting can.”
Voting in national elections is certainly not the only way to influence government, nor is voting in general.
In particular, the founders contemplated that a primary means of resisting and redressing federal overreach would be through the states and their respective governments.
And that is just as well, because if all you can do is vote on some binary choice in a massive and ever-growing centralized government, then you really don’t have any influence. For one thing, as you said, money buys influence in D.C. more so than votes. Beyond that, the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government is just far too expansive for meaningful self-government to occur. Why should some backwoods rural community that might be farther away from San Francisco than Ireland is from Israel have a say in regulating the details of everyday life in the latter, and vice versa? Everything from gun laws, to school curricula and classroom policies, to home energy tax deductions, use of gas stoves, and so on. It’s not practical to compress all of these issues into a single binary ballot choice. Not when your jurisdiction is so vast and encompasses many diverse communities with their own unique cultures, beliefs, customs, climates, industries, challenges, and strengths. That diversity is a good thing, and the puritanical quest to oppress and obliterate it for the sake of power, empire, GDP, moral aesthetic or what have you, is hostile to humanity and liberty. It is also nothing new, this drive and this philosophy is as old as history, while decentralized self-government is relatively new.
ML wants an America radically different than the one we have now.
Voting won't get him there anytime soon.
So he posts on the Internet instead.
I guess it's better than the alternatives.
No, I like the America we have now. And the US (America refers to two continents). I'd just like a little bit different government. 🙂
Lifetime appointments are fine for figurehead monarchs and religious leaders like the Pope. No one with real governmental power should ever serve for an indefinite period of time. It isn't even about serving into old age. It is just that everyone with governmental power should have a set end to their ability to wield power.
I have been very reluctant to support legislative term limits, and I still am. The power that legislators wield is diluted by spreading throughout the whole body and not just a single individual. But executive offices and judges should all have to step away eventually, even if in good health.
As a matter of constitutional norms...
"Constitutional norm" is a nebulous term, to me. When people talk about "norms" for any kind of behavior, I become skeptical. (Well, more skeptical.) I've seen people often use that word when they really think that someone is behaving wrongly, and they want to make that behavior seem contrary to the listeners' values, especially group values. It is very much like using the word "normal" to describe someone that is "like us" in a way that implies that someone "not normal" should be suspect.
I look at the Constitution in the way that I think most of those that wrote it did. It is a guide as much as it is law. For all of the provisions that are specific enough that it was easy to see when they would be violated, there are provisions that would be open to interpretation. And, there are other things that would have to exist in government that are not mentioned at all, leaving it to the elected branches to figure out as they went.
Article III says nothing about how many Justices there should be or how or when Congress should change that. All federal judges, including Justices, serving "during good behavior," definitely means that they can't be removed entirely from their positions without impeachment. It can at least be argued, however, that Congress can define what it means to "serve," for how long, and in what role. I'm assuming that is what would be the mechanism by which a law could shuffle a Justice off of most cases. Such as by giving them the equivalent of the "senior status" Circuit judges get as a kind of semi-retirement.
Overall, though, I think that these kinds of reforms are necessary because federal judges have too often violated the "constitutional norms" that keep them from usurping power from the elected branches. As I say in my comment above, lifetime appointments simply go too far to maintain the judiciary as a co-equal branch of the federal government. It allows judges and especially justices the ability to wield power as individuals for far too long with too little accountability. The restraint that judges are expected to show in wielding that power is not in evidence, if it ever was.
"All federal judges, including Justices, serving “during good behavior,” definitely means that they can’t be removed entirely from their positions without impeachment."
If we are going to be open-minded here, "definitely" is dubious.
Judges, unlike executive officials, serve during good behavior. Why can't -- at least reasonably -- a conviction for murder, for instance, show bad behavior? Why is impeachment necessarily required?
An originalist once wrote a long article discussing the point, referencing a 1790 law or thereabouts the suggested judges were automatically removed if they were found guilty of certain crimes. I don't think this "proves" anything, but it is interesting.
I have assumed, largely from historical practice, that good behavior assumes life tenure. But, I guess, the text doesn't literally say that. It talks about "offices" held for good behavior.
In other contexts, Congress can establish offices for a set term of years. So, why not a 18-year term, removable only by bad behavior? Congress should particularly have flexibility for lower courts. At least, it is not obviously wrong.
"Why can’t — at least reasonably — a conviction for murder, for instance, show bad behavior? Why is impeachment necessarily required?"
Because impeachment is how you demonstrate that Congress agrees that the conviction indicates bad behavior.
In principle, at least, a judge could be convicted of murder, and the Senate, after looking at the circumstances, might decide that he'd been railroaded, and wasn't actually guilty.
Because the power to remove judges was given to Congress, not individual trial courts or juries.
As always, you are assuming your conclusion. That's true as a matter of historical practice, but there's no actual language in the constitution that says so.
That's my thinking as well. Although, I think that Congress would then need to pass a law or at least make it part of the enforceable judicial ethics codes that a criminal conviction would result in removal. I think that Brett is correct that there would need to be some procedural mechanism in place, rather than it being up to someone else's discretion to make the call that a judge no longer satisfied the "good behavior" requirement.
Perhaps there could be a neutral rationale for setting a mandatory retirement age to avoid the problem of infirm judges—but there is nothing politically neutral about current proposals.
Yes, a neutral rationale exists for having a mandatory retirement age and/or term limit. The current federal lack of either is quite uncommon on a worldwide scale.
Constitutional issues have split parties from the beginning. Nonetheless, the reforms should be bipartisan. For instance, Chuck Grassley in the past supported an inspector general position. He also supports televising oral arguments.
Other reforms also have bipartisan support, including dealing with national injuctions (Gorsuch and Thomas voiced concern).
Limits of presidential immunity should also be bipartisan. (retired) Judge Luttig is but one conservative who supports it. So much for constitutional norms? Yes. Trump v. U.S. was a sad day.
Ethical legislation is constitutional. One measure is expressly cited as an amendment. Term limits were left open.
The report of the presidential supreme court commission, which had a range of ideological views, notes that term limits are supported by conservative and progressive scholars.
The report also discusses the complicated details. This underlines the value of leaving open the details for now. Congress can debate the particulars. HOW it must be done is also greatly debated, including if an amendment is necessary.
I lean toward thinking an amendment is necessary but the literal text (like “good behavior” not only being enforced by impeachment) is more complicated. It is sound that the summary by Biden left the matter open for further discussion.
"conservative who supports it."
Luttig had his mind broken by being by-passed for SCOTUS. His support is like support from a mental institution inmate.
If I read this analysis correctly (having not seen the actual proposal), it would essentially strip appellate jurisdiction based on the status of the individual Justice as opposed to the Court as a whole. So a "senior" or "retired" Justice would still be a member of the Supreme Court authorized to handle cases of original jurisdiction, but not of cases with appellate jurisdiction.
If that's the case, it's certainly a clever way of reading the statute that isn't automatically unconstitutional. It would also have the effect of no set number of Justices on the Court, just that two would be added every year and only the most recent nine could hear appeals. I don't think it's correct as a matter of law, though. Congress can give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction or not, not the individual Justices on the Supreme Court.
That being said, I don't think it's a threat to judicial independence unless the terms are renewable.
Nah. The entity that has or does not have jurisdiction is the Court.
"the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction..."
The Court is composed of a bunch of Justices. You can’t strip a Justice of “jurisdiction” but have the Court keep it.
You can – if you change the Constitution – stop a Justice participating in the Court as it exercises its jurisdiction. Or you can strip the Court of its jurisdiction in toto.
As Lee Moore says, “jurisdiction” is a concept that applies to the Court, not to individual justices. The proposed Congressional legislation (S. 3096 and H.R. 5140) restructures the court so that not all justices participate in every case.
The closest thing to this approach in current practice is federal appellate courts assigning cases to three judge panels, rather than having the entire court hear each case.
The nerve of those leftists trying to impose an enforceable ethics code! On God’s own six members of the nine member Supreme Court no less!! This is clearly a threat to conservatism!!!
And then these dastardly Marxists propose reforms that require a constitutional amendment, which every smirking FedSoc’er worth their salt knows is a near impossibility?! This is the last straw before crossing the rubicon past the point of no return!!!
"All process arguments are insincere, including this one."
Bah. This is just moar lawfare. I used to respect the Democratic Party for being smart. No longer. They are being run by idiots.
The Democratic Party is being run by idiots.
The Republican Party is a bunch of poorly educated, backwater bigots who can't distinguish the reality-based world from childish fairy tales.
Where is the hope for America, DaveM?
Hmmm...
When did you respect the Democratic Party? What leaders did you respect?
I graduated at the bottom of my class at Princeton Law School, so forgive this dumb question: Since when is proposing an amendment to the Constitution offensive to "those who care about constitutional government"?
Well, it's obviously not. It's the parts of the proposal that didn't involve an amendment that were so offensive.
Welcome to the VC comments section newbee!
The idea of "eliminating presidential immunity" is not well thought out. As it is weaved into the very structure of the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers, it would be hard to imagine how such an amendment would even be worded.
Could Congress take away the president's veto through legislation? Rather obviously, it could not. Could it criminalize the presidential veto? Could it criminalize a president's threat to issue a veto under some theory of "blackmail" or "coercion" or "corrupt purposes"? For example, "I will veto that bill if you don't remove section X." Or, how about, "I will veto that bill if you don't increase my salary"? I suspect none of these would be permissible under the separation of powers.
The case of Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016), is illustrative. There, the Travis County D.A.'s office indicted former Governor Rick Perry for "coercion of a public official" for threatening to veto certain funding for that office if the D.A, did not resign. (There was a second, even more ludicrous charge that by, in fact, vetoing said funding, Perry had "misappropriated" funds in his charge.) In tossing the indictment, the Court of Criminal Appeals wrote, "The Legislature cannot directly or indirectly limit the governor's veto power. No law passed by the Legislature can constitutionally make the mere act of vetoing legislation a crime." Id. at 901.
The crux of the Trump case was the same. The Legislature cannot restrict the Executive's use of "official powers", including through the criminal law. Would the Perry case have been different if an amendment existed that read, "The Governor has no immunity"? Notably, the Texas court did not use the word "immunity" to describe essentially the same thing, a matter of separation of powers, and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court would have been wise to avoid using it as well.
It is not at all difficult to imagine. As I said the other day: "Former presidents are not immune from prosecution. Period." (The other day I used ten words, but today I got it down to eight.)
Contrary to your claim, immunity and the unconstitutionality of a criminal law are not "essentially the same thing." (For one thing, with the latter we wouldn't have the bullshit-squared ruling that went too far even for Barrett saying that official acts cannot even be used as evidence of a crime.)
And for another, a "separation of powers" argument for why a particular criminal law were unconstitutional (either facially or as applied) would only apply to acts that were expressly vested in the executive, like vetoes or pardons; it would not even colorably apply to all "official acts."
And for another, a “separation of powers” argument for why a particular criminal law were unconstitutional (either facially or as applied) would only apply to acts that were expressly vested in the executive, like vetoes or pardons; it would not even colorably apply to all “official acts.”
Also spot on. Any "official acts" that aren't duties or powers spelled out in the Constitution itself would be the President carrying out the laws passed by Congress. "Faithfully" executing the law can't also violate criminal law, one would think.
(For one thing, with the latter we wouldn’t have the bullshit-squared ruling that went too far even for Barrett saying that official acts cannot even be used as evidence of a crime.)
Bullshit-squared is a good way to put this. Do they seriously think that the simple fact that he has given an order as part of an "official act" can't be used as evidence? The mind boggles.
Yes, saying a law is "unconstitutional as applied to the President under separation of powers principles" is functionally equivalent to saying "presidential immunity". I doubt if the Court had used the former, as opposed to the latter, it would have assuaged critics of the decision.
As to the official acts being introduced as evidence, what you describe as "bullshit-squared", is simply a commonsense natural extension of immunity. In the context of Congressional immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause, for example, if a member of Congress is accused of taking money in exchange for introducing a bill, he can be charged with taking a bribe, but any evidence of his introduction of the bill could not be used. United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 487 (1979) ("no doubt that evidence of a legislative act of a Member may not be introduced by the Government"); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 527 (1972) ("[E]vidence of acts protected by the Clause is inadmissible.").
The idea of “eliminating presidential immunity” is not well thought out. As it is weaved into the very structure of the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers...
How so? Members of Congress are granted specific and explicit privileges in the Speech and Debate Clause. That is not "woven into the structure" of the Constitution or the concept of separation of powers. If it was necessary to spell out the limitations on their arrest (which also only applies during the session or travel to or from a session of Congress, and doesn't limit any kind of prosecution, by the way), why wouldn't actual immunity from prosecution for the President need to be spelled in explicit text?