When we first learned that Joe Biden planned to announce ambitious proposals to "reform" the Supreme Court, that idea sounded outlandish even by Biden's standards. And it was. Now, however, Kamala Harris has hitched her horse to the same unconstitutional wagon, fully endorsing Biden's proposals and saying that she planned to support them going forward. Pesky little things like the Constitution, the amendment process, and the vision of the Founding Fathers apparently don't take up much space in the heads of these Democrats. Just for good measure, they also proposed a Constitutional amendment that would overturn a recent SCOTUS decision regarding presidential immunity. This proves that they are aware of the possibility of amending the Constitution. They just don't seem to know very much about how the process works. (NY Post)

President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday together proposed a long-shot plan to remake the Supreme Court — which Republicans denounced as politicizing the legal system.

“President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms – from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge,” Harris said in a statement.

“These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the Court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law.”

Looked at in the broadest strokes, none of these proposed "regulations" of the Supreme Court are the business of the executive branch or even the legislative branch, for that matter. The Founders created the government in a way that it would be headed up by three co-equal branches. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the Constitution again. The first three articles of the document go on at great length defining the powers and limits of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Democrats in the executive branch don't get to ride roughshod over the Supreme Court simply because a couple of decisions didn't go the way they might have preferred.

The specifics of these proposals are no better when examined closely. Biden and Harris are seeking 18-year term limits on justices. That is directly contrary to Article 3 of the Constitution and would require a constitutional amendment to make it happen. The odds of any amendment making it through in this deeply divided, partisan political environment are virtually nill. Biden might wish that the SCOTUS justices were required to disclose gifts, but - again - he has no power to impose such rules on them. Nor does Congress. The most they can do is ask politely and hope that the justices agree to do so voluntarily.

Biden and Harris would also like to force the justices to abstain from political activity (something that is already prohibited) and to recuse themselves in cases where a conflict of interest may exist. The justices already have the option of recusal and that option is exercised from time to time. (All three of the liberal justices recused themselves when the court heard a case involving a lawsuit against Sotomayor.)  But it remains an "option." Nobody can force one of the justices to recuse. 

Some of the other proposals under discussion just seem nonsensical straight out of the gate. Biden and Harris want to limit presidents to one SCOTUS nomination every two years. First of all, the power to nominate Supreme Court justices is vested by name in the President under Article II, Section 2, and it includes no such limits or timelines. Even if they managed to get away with this, what would happen if three justices either retired or unexpectedly passed away in the same year? It would take six years before all of their replacements could even be nominated, to say nothing of being seated. 

What we're seeing here is yet another case of the Democrats stomping their feet and whining any time something at the court doesn't go their way. When liberal justices held the majority on the court, you didn't hear a peep out of these people and they seemed happy as clams. But now that some constitutional rigor is being applied when writing the decisions, they want to take their ball and go home.