Published on August 3, 2024, 12:30 am

With deep scrutiny pervading discussions in the wake of Democrats’ supposed Supreme Court “reform” proposal, a discerning lens is being cast upon the underlying intentions and consequences of this move. The prevalent sentiment is that this move is merely a clever strategy to disqualify both the judicial body and, more gravely, the Constitution itself.

One raises significant questions regarding the potential political bias inherent in these reform proposals. Would any member of the Democratic party have supported such a sweeping change if it were likely that Republicans would take control? This places into focus a potential lack of objectivity aimed at manipulating for partisan gain.

At its core, this purported ‘reform’ proposition aims for a court-packing scheme—an unconstitutional maneuver by any measure. For some observers, it may seem as if President Joe Biden has subtly endorsed this under-the-table maneuver. If enacted, an 18-year term limit for justices would conveniently transform what currently stands as a 6-3 originalist majority into a 6-3 majority favoring an evolving approach to constitutional interpretation. Such changes could lead to progressive reform resulting from overruling recent judgments and granting permissions toward greater federal ruling abuses.

Nevertheless, many see these bold moves as double-edged swords: motivating election strategies while highlighting negative aspects to feed public opinion on the value represented by governing bodies like Congress and parties like Democrats.

More importantly, it reflects on how democratic channels today are increasingly becoming avenues for propagating ideals rather than maintaining legality and fairness. Prominent figures like Vice President Kamala Harris argue that packing the Supreme Court is imperative because of what she terms as “a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.”

Arguably though, this “lack of confidence” phenomenon could be traced back to institution attacks orchestrated by activist groups with left-leaning affiliates—another evident attempt at molding perception through media-driven campaigns that include assigning buzz phrases such as “plagued by ethical scandals.”

Gallup’s latest polls demonstrate that 30% of Americans have significant confidence in the Supreme Court. Another 31% confirmed having “some” confidence. Suppose these ratings are a rationale for stripping judicial branch independence. In that case, there seems to be a serious societal misbalance when we allow such actions by Congress—an institution with a mere 9% confidence rating.

Reflecting on past precedents, Democrats’ tendency to create disparaging narratives around figures like Clarence Thomas also raises questions about measurement standards and whether they are led by impartiality or political agendas.

Today, the battle is clearly not restricted within party lines but extends to the heart of national institutions—a struggle for maintaining balance in how society views real news and trusted sources.

The proposal’s end goal appears clear: to incorporate an ethical code of conduct that facilitates partisans slander justices—creating an unhinged path for more politically driven investigations and suspect trials.

The president’s assessment pertaining to public confidence in court decisions touching personal freedoms invokes introspective thought. Gallup’s recent poll revealing a 26% approval for President Biden himself puts both statements into broader perspective.

Contrary to popular undercurrents, Americans place more trust in the Supreme Court than state-run schools, unions, large corporations, banks or even the criminal justice system itself.

There are merits in remembering why life-term appointments for justices were instituted—to shield them from unpredictable political pressures enabling independent functioning. However, this reality creates unease among many progressive factions who would prefer an ideologized judiciary influenced by partisan politics.

In essence, Democrats’ ambitious plan to pack the Supreme Court presumably represents an assault on constitutional order—it places at risk one of Washington D.C.’s efficiently functioning institutions based on a Christian worldview towards law and order.

Engaging with biting reality checks demands accurate information from reliable news outlets as opposed to biased picture-painting exercises geared toward particular viewpoints. Discerning between real news and skewed narratives can guide the preservation of democracy and uphold trusted news’ importance.