Biden’s Desperate Bid to Control Judiciary Revealed

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a notable appointee of Trump’s Presidency, expressed caution against potentially damaging regulations on the judicial body. His comments were seen as a subtle response to the various alterations proposed to the judicial system by the Biden administration. Justice Gorsuch maintained diplomatic restraint during his discussions, declining to delve into what he characterized as mired in political controversy, especially amid a critical election year.

The principal thing to focus on here, he asserted, was the importance of judicial independence. In an interview with Fox News Sunday, he steered clear of concrete political arguments but instead emphasized the necessity of an independent judiciary in a democratic society. The question Americans should contemplate, he hinted, is what such freedom from intervention means to them and their judicial rights.

He shed light on the role of an impartial judiciary, explaining that it is there to ensure justice for those who are not favored by the majority. Further asserting that while the majority can safeguard its rights relying on its popularity, a fair legal hearing becomes pivotal when individuals fall out of favor. And when the government’s gaze turns in your direction, the notion of an unbiased judiciary becomes even more pertinent, he suggested.

Fueling the controversy, the past year has witnessed a series of contentious reports raising questions about the Supreme Court’s integrity. There have been claims of donors endowing justices with extravagant presents and foreign trips, or insinuations that they have profited handsomely from book deals. This amplified scrutiny on the Supreme Court is an intriguing backdrop to the larger debate on reforming the body.

Trump’s three appointees have given the court a conservative majority of 6 to 3, and this majority has delivered a number of disputed decisions. Even more provocatively, they rendered the president immune to legal repercussions for official actions taken in office. As a consequence, the court’s reputation amongst Americans has plummeted, as exhibited by several recent surveys pegging it at record lows since 2022.

This disfavour is mirrored in the revocation of Roe v. Wade that same year, pushing the court further into the public’s disapprobation. A staggering 70% of respondents in an AP/NORC poll concluded that Supreme Court justices were more prone to mould law according to their individual biases, intensifying the call for systematic reforms.

Joe Biden has echoed these cries for change and proposed a series of radical modifications. He announced intentions to implement an ethics code enforceable on Supreme Court justices, and suggested term limits of 18 years. These proposed adjustments, especially the enforceable ethics code, are worthy of ridicule as it unveils Biden’s desperate attempts to exert control over the judicial branch.

In addition to these already contentious proposals, an op-ed in the Washington Post reveals Biden’s further plans to invoke a ‘No One Is Above The Law’ amendment. On the surface, it appears this initiative could overrule the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold presidential immunity, yet it is hardly surprising, considering the recent facile strategies of the Biden administration.

As a rule, Supreme Court justices tend to remain detached from political discourse, maintaining their distance from executive branch initiatives. However, liberal Justice Elena Kagan is a noted exception. Prior to the Biden administration’s reform announcement, Kagan called for comparable ethics modifications at a judicial conference.

Kagan’s recommendations included the implementation of an ethics code, similar to the one now proposed by Biden. She proposed the code be overseen by an independent panel of judges appointed by the Chief Justice. However, the broad dismissal of enforcement mechanisms underlying these rules suggest such proposals are more about appeasement than delivering genuine reform.

The absurdity of the enforcement issue was evident when Kagan openly criticized the lack of robust enforcement mechanisms attached to the proposed rules. Why present a rule if it lacks the teeth to be enforced? This lays bare the current administration’s inability to operate within existing frameworks and the necessity to meddle with critical institutions under their transparent bid for control.

Gorsuch once more exhibited his astute political acumen and declined to comment when a New York Times columnist asked about these suggested reforms. He diplomatically alluded to the ongoing lively discussions and recent developments about the idea of an ethics committee. The understated manner in which he navigated the question revealed his tact in handling loaded subjects.

Again, when probed further on the hot-button topic of term limits, Gorsuch remained tactful. He reiterated his previous stance, focusing on deferring the subject to more extensive political debates. This encounter serves as yet another example of his refreshing commitment to the judiciary’s stated policy of judicial impartiality.

He capped his reticence with a light-hearted note, expressing his anticipation for a few years of fly fishing. The humorous interjection showcased Gorsuch’s knack for defusing tense scenarios while remaining steadfast in his own principles.

Biden’s proposed reforms set the stage for a contentious tug-of-war between branches of government. These politically charged modifications, which represent a significant deviation from established norms, are likely to undermine the public’s faith in the Court’s capability to uphold just and impartial rule of law.

Ultimately, these attempts by the Biden administration to regulate the judiciary pose an existential threat to our democratic principles. A fiercely independent judiciary is a cornerstone of our democracy, and any attempts to erode its independence must be met with scrutiny and resisted at all cost.