To protect the independence of judiciary

This week, the White House announced a radical set of policy proposals to remake the Supreme Court of the United States.

This week, the White House announced a radical set of policy proposals to remake the Supreme Court of the United States. The proposals include reducing the length of time Supreme Court justices serve to 18-year terms and stripping former presidents of their immunity from prosecution for their actions in office. The latter is in plain opposition to a recent Supreme Court decision and would require passage of a constitutional amendment.

President Biden’s False Claim

In a Washington Post opinion piece accompanying the announcement, President Biden falsely claimed a recent decision by the Supreme Court leaves the office of President of the United States above the law and without limit on his powers. This is simply not true. The framers of our Constitution had the wisdom to establish checks on the actions of the president. These limits include impeachment, removal from office, and disqualification from holding office again.

Judicial Review and Accountability

Furthermore, with the duty to interpret the law, the Judicial Branch holds the Executive Branch accountable to the Constitution through a process known as judicial review. President Biden and Vice President Harris should know this well, as several of their administration’s unsuccessful policies of the last four years — such as their WOTUS rule and student loan scam — have been struck down by the court.

Undermining the Independence of the Judiciary

It’s clear the Biden-Harris Administration doesn’t want a Supreme Court which holds them accountable to our Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress. I have disagreed with decisions the Supreme Court has handed down in the past. This does not give me or anyone the right to recreate the Supreme Court in the manner of our choosing. Rather than allow the independence of the Judicial Branch to prevail in its legitimate role as our founders would have preferred, the Biden-Harris Administration wants one which will rubber stamp their unlawful, failed policies.

The Importance of an Independent Judiciary

In the decades prior to the American Revolution, reforms to the British court system gave judges life-tenure to limit the influence the king had over judicial decisions. Seeing this was necessary to curb the corrupting will of a despot, the Founders knew an independent judiciary would serve the American people best.

Preserving the Rule of Law

An independent judiciary is essential to buttress our nation against the sway of political whims. The rule of law—meaning no one can supersede or conform the judicial system to fulfill their self-serving purposes—depends on a court system which is not politically dependent on the two elected federal branches. As polarization and division has risen in the United States, the last thing we need is a more political Supreme Court.

Politicization of the Supreme Court

As I wrote in a November 2021 column, changes like those proposed here would result in more frequent and more intense politicization of the Supreme Court nomination and approval process by those who think the primary purpose of the court should be writing new laws, not interpreting existing laws and determining whether they are compliant with our Constitution.

Eroding the Independence of the Court

By guaranteeing the appointment of two new justices during each presidential term, the White House’s proposal would erode the independence of the court and make it more enmeshed in the political battleground.

A Historical Rejection

In a 1987 speech decrying the pursuit of “political ends…through judicial means,” then-Senator Joe Biden cited Congress’ emphatic rejection of President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 court packing proposal when New Deal-era Senate Democrats refused the president’s attempt to shift the balance of the court and thereby “punish the justices for their opinions.”

Destroying the Integrity of the Court

Having little chance of becoming law, the White House’s moonshot proposals would effectively destroy the integrity of our court system. Representing yet another attempt of repeated overreach from the Biden-Harris Administration, this is a blatant political signal from a lame duck president to far-left special interest groups which would like nothing more than to remake the court to bend it to their ideological agenda.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis:

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

The article discusses proposals to remake the Supreme Court and highlights the importance of an independent judiciary and the rule of law. These align with the targets of promoting the rule of law and developing effective and accountable institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized mechanisms.
• Indicator 16.6.1: Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar).

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but it discusses the importance of an independent judiciary and the rule of law. Indicators such as the proportion of victims reporting violence to authorities and government expenditures can be used to measure progress towards the targets of equal access to justice and effective institutions.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table:

Source: norfolkdailynews.com