Biden's Last-minute Constitutional Change Slammed By Legal Experts: 'Cynical And Irrelevant'

In a controversial move, President Biden has proposed a last-minute change to the Constitution that would grant Congress the authority to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices. The proposal has drawn swift condemnation from legal experts, who have slammed it as "cynical" and "irrelevant." Those against the change argue that it poses a threat to the independence of the judiciary and would do little to address the underlying problems with the Court.

A 'Cynical' Attempt to Pack the Court

Critics of the proposal have accused Biden of attempting to "pack the Court" with liberal justices before Republicans can regain control of the Senate. They argue that the change is unnecessary since Congress already has the power to impeach justices who engage in misconduct. Furthermore, they contend that the proposal would undermine the independence of the judiciary by making justices beholden to political whims.

'Irrelevant' to Current Concerns

Legal experts have also dismissed the proposal as "irrelevant" to the current concerns about the Supreme Court. They point out that the Court's recent rulings on abortion, gun control, and environmental protection have been widely unpopular, particularly among the Democratic base. However, they argue that term limits would not change the ideological balance of the Court, which is currently dominated by conservative justices.

Threats to Judicial Independence

One of the main concerns raised by legal experts is the threat to the independence of the judiciary. They argue that term limits would make justices more susceptible to political pressure, as they would be aware that their tenure is limited. This could lead to justices ruling in a manner that favors the political party that appointed them, rather than interpreting the law impartially.

Undermining Constitutional Separation of Powers

Critics also argue that the proposal would undermine the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution grants the President the power to appoint justices, and the Senate the power to confirm them. By granting Congress the authority to set term limits, the proposal would blur the lines of separation between the branches of government.

Comparative Perspectives: Term Limits in Other Jurisdictions

Proponents of term limits often point to the example of other jurisdictions that have successfully implemented them. In Canada, for example, Supreme Court justices are appointed for a single 15-year term. However, it is important to note that the Canadian Constitution also provides for a mandatory retirement age for judges, which is not included in Biden's proposal. This suggests that term limits alone may not be sufficient to guarantee judicial independence.

Conclusion: A Flawed Proposal

In conclusion, Biden's last-minute proposal to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices has been met with widespread criticism from legal experts. Critics argue that the proposal is "cynical" and "irrelevant," and poses a threat to the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation of powers. While term limits may have some appeal as a means to address concerns about the Court, they would likely have little impact on the Court's ideological balance and could potentially undermine the impartiality of justices. Ultimately, the proposal appears to be a misguided attempt to address broader concerns about the Court without addressing the underlying issues.