Biden's Supreme Court Revolution: A New Era?

Ever since the infamous Hamiltonian era the American Supreme Court, despite popular assumption, seems to be a structurally liberal and permissive body, most prevalently in the juridicial sense (i.e. both the appointment of Supreme Court Justices and. the framework of their practice). Not only does the Constitution not denote any specific age requirements to qualify as an SCJ, but it also fails to mention any criteria with regards to education, experience as a legal practitioner, or even native citizenship. Yet like many things, there truly exists a large divergence between the words written (or not written) in 1787, and how its fruit manifests in actual practice. For whilst on paper the role of Supreme Court Justice would seem to welcome progression and ideological evolution, the reality is that many people have become unhappy with the sheer obstinance and, more importantly, procedural questionability the Supreme Court has led itself into: this crisis has, rather serendipitously, reached its apex at this convenient time in the advent of a presidential election, and it seems as though the Democrats are the ones to first lay their political hands on it.

In a recent announcement to the public, the Biden Administration has formally declared its plans to impose three major Supreme Court reforms. These reforms firstly include the so-called 'No One Is Above the Law Amendment' which dismantles the constitutional interpretation of presidential immunity from being charged with criminal acts committed while in office. Another one of the reforms aims to implement a superseding Code of Conduct for SCJs, or in other words, create a mini constitution of ethics for those who interpret the actual constitution.

This, in tandem, would theoretically reassert the rule of law over both abusive executive politicians and sleazy justices respectively, an objective somewhat reflective of Biden's legalistic, constitutionalist ideology. In turn, the premise of the set of reforms is to restore faith in the American judicial system and eradicate any existing political contamination in the courts, and also gain some voters, of course (not as though that's what the Democrats had in mind). Indeed, this may seem like an entirely positive situation, but where the real crux lies is in the other proposed reform, which would impose rigid term limits on SCJ positions, similar to the structure of the timeframe of presidency that was established around 75 years ago.

Whilst it is not yet clear exactly how these term limits would be applied, in generating any kind of quasi-electoral procedure around these juridicial positions many have already begun to voice their concerns as to whether the Biden Administration would be politicising an already deeply partisan Supreme Court. In essence, the primary objection raised is that by applying a sort of pressure to these SCJ positions, those holding such positions, alongside federal judges vying for a promotion may adopt a somewhat populist attitude when it comes to their rulings to, put frankly, make a name for themselves. Since it's basically inevitable that such appointments will continue to be spearheaded by the exccutive branch, perhaps through Biden's doctrine federal judges seeking to become an SCJ may aim to please the governing political party in terms of the nature of their rulings, often at the expense of the principles of objectivity, fairness and candour.

In addition, it could end up being the case in practice that Supreme Court Justices would prioritise, or at least consider heavily, establishing a legacy of greatness and fame etcetera through extrapolating and manipulating seemingly straight-forward cases (in a rather Marshalling fashion indeed), as opposed to making fair, reasonable and proportional judgements. After all, it is crucial to note that judges aren't robots and do, just like every other human, have a tendency to capitalise or pounce on opportunities that come forth: in other words, when a Supreme Court Justice is told that they only have a handful of years in office, they sure will be determined to make their mark, whatever that may entail.

Nevertheless, it remains the truth that the Supreme Court upholds a long-standing problem of obstinance as a result of life time tenures, and therefore in that respect, perhaps the policy in question would help promote some fresh legal perspectives and bridge the wide gap between the judicial realm, and the reality of our constantly evolving social environment.

Ultimately, it goes without saying that there are some deep-seated problems in the American judiciary, yet the question of whether Biden's proposed reforms would mitigate these problems, or, in fact, exacerbate them, is relatively nebulous right now.

However, perhaps such a question isn't very important at all, as whilst the Democrats do claim a certain confidence behind their plans, the reality is that they would need a good old-fashioned congressional majority to be passed, alongside the approval of the justices who's careers would in theory be jeopardised (no, judicial review is not a myth), and is therefore more of an aspiration than a serious, concrete action plan, at least for now.