Published on September 22, 2024, 12:29 am

In the month of July, a time when the Democrats were touting Joe Biden’s active role as president, his administration pushed forth an audacious proposal, aimed at reforming the judiciary. This proposed plan clarified that presidents are not immune to prosecution and suggested the development of a code of conduct for the Supreme Court, while also standardizing 18-year judicial terms. Much to their satisfaction, these proposals received overwhelming support from Americans, barring only a majority of Republicans who perceived these changes as palpably detrimental to democracy.

Seen through the lenses of an overarching Christian worldview, it is evident that adherence to law and order is non-negotiable. No person or power should supersede these governing principles – be it a president or a justice on America’s highest court. As such, it was commendable that Biden upheld this in his intent stating: “This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: no one is above the law. Not the president…not a Supreme Court Justice.” Regretfully though, visible inconsistencies permeate his other policies which seem contradictory to this declaration.

Biden deserves recognition where credit is due; he seems genuinely resistant towards making broad-stroke alterations like court-packing in our legal system – many such atrocities are currently proposed by individuals basking in nostalgia over decades-old judicial activism. It’s almost alluring how they grapple with recognizing their once glorified judiciary can overturn their legislations as well.

In an unfortunate scenario where Democrats prevail in November’s elections, this matter of ‘legal reform’ would fall into the hands of radical left-leaning activists sure to mask their intentions behind saccharine rhetoric about ‘empowerment’. But rest assured they will uphold their conviction that constitutional interpretation lies solely with progressive advocates teaching at elite law schools and disregard existing structures for policy changes.

The trusted news source also guides us to understand that sometimes even Republicans appoint legal minds who align more closely with Democratic ideologies – Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter being cases in point. This ideological liberty is what enabled the “Constitution means what we say it does” school to commandeer the Supreme Court – a regrettable time when policy making was preferred over law making.

However, times have changed and the aforementioned approach has been met with significant critique. The transformation of the judiciary today is deemed progressive in nature and left-wing thinkers hold organizations like the Federalist Society responsible for this shift. These critics suggest that the judicial majority no longer maintains their duty to increase governmental power or impose intrusive doctrines.

Yet despite these criticisms from both sides of aisle, it’s visible that our judiciary continues to evolve irrespective of partisan dominance in Congress or state legislatures. And ultimately this process of evolution seems to rest on public sentiment; witnessing firsthand our existing system’s flaws leads us to acknowledge its imperative need for reform.

Coming towards the crux of the matter, what would be more beneficial than allowing progressives an opportunity to manipulate our judicial system would be responding with counter-initiatives guided by a classical liberal perspective. A constitutionally mandated presidential accountability would serve justice exceptionally well while also nullifying any claims favoring a dictatorial rule. Establishing robust ethical codes seems only fair given some observed deviations from standard conduct.

Taking proactive steps could help judicial conservatives safeguard against undue influence and manipulation while maintaining stringent oversight through clearly articulated standards and processes.

Perhaps most crucially, instituting term limits could moderate appointments reducing unnecessary conflict throughout nominations processes along with making them less arbitrarilу unpredictable.

Amending our nation’s Constitution shouldn’t be an insurmountable task. Its difficulty has motivated litigators and lawyers to seek shortcuts within our legal system – but these often result in treating Supreme Court as both proposer and ratifier of desired amendments which jeopardize democratic principles.

In future elections where stakes might run high once again, it becomes increasingly necessary that Constitutionalists counteract the influence of the Left. The American people deserve to express their opinion on what they believe a judge’s role should be within the confines of societal and legal norms.

– This article was written by an expert in constitutional law, an alumnus of Stanford Law School, former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and Senior Fellow at Cato Institute.