Staff Reports
The White House is attempting to sell President Biden’s recently unveiled Supreme Court overhaul plans as a serious response to supposed “undermining of democracy,” but one can’t help but wonder if this is merely a clever election year ploy to rally the base before the dust settles in 2024. Biden’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, insists that the high court’s recent rulings are anything but normal, declaring that a pseudo-consensus among the American public stands with them. It sounds like a classic case of the administration trying to convince everyone that the sky is falling to mask its own incompetence.
In a flurry of proposals, Biden has laid out an ambitious, yet politically improbable plan, including 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, a constitutional amendment to negate the court’s recent presidential immunity ruling, and a “binding” ethics code. House Speaker Mike Johnson decisively labeled these proposals as “dead on arrival” in Congress, signaling to all but the most committed political enthusiasts that these ideas are less about governance and more about political theater. After all, if the Democrats can’t govern, may as well perform for the audience.
Washington Examiner: White House pressed on ‘election year gambit’ Supreme Court overhaul https://t.co/97mbrbbhgl
— Ian Hansen 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@IanHansenFeed) July 30, 2024
During a speech in Austin, Texas, Biden didn’t bat an eye at being called out for the political nature of his initiatives; instead, he casually flipped the script, suggesting that those critical of him were the ones experiencing a conceptual demise. It’s remarkable how quickly the president can pivot from serious policy discussion to vague insults, showcasing yet again a preference for rhetoric over reality.
The lack of engagement with congressional Democrats raises further questions about Biden’s intent. Are these proposals a sincere attempt at reform, or simply a hollow campaign strategy to rev up support? Jean-Pierre continues to push the narrative that the reforms are popular, citing a few conservative scholars who back term limits as proof of its viability. Still, when discussing systemic changes to the Supreme Court, one must question whether these scholars are aware of the implications of shifting the balance of power from the traditionally respected institution to a president whose grasp on reality is sometimes questionable.
As the discussion unfolds, it remains unclear if the 18-year term limits Biden supports would actually apply to the current justices. These justices, appointed by Republican presidents, happen to be sitting comfortably under lifetime appointments—what a shocker that the Democrats’ reform plans bypass them in their entirety! In the end, while Jean-Pierre emphasizes that the rule of law is foundational to democracy, one has to wonder whether this administration is truly committed to such ideals or just eager to play the blame game while pointing fantastic fingers at their preferred target: a Supreme Court that dares to disagree with them.
