Biden’s ‘Reforms’ Will Destroy Supreme Court’s Legitimacy

Kamala Harris is so moderate that her only goal is to unnoticeably pack the Supreme Court.

Of course, through thinly disguised actions, but it is difficult to hide the deliberate destruction of American government institutions.

The newly elected Democratic presidential candidate has endorsed President Biden’s plan for Supreme Court “reform,” the centerpiece of which is a proposed 18-year term limits that would immediately remove Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from the court.

This is otherwise known as court packing.

Biden also wants the court to establish an enforceable code of ethics and an amendment to the Constitution that would say presidents do not have immunity from prosecution for their official actions, which would conflict with a recent Supreme Court decision on the matter.

Harris is all for it: “These popular reforms will help restore trust in the courts, strengthen our democracy, and ensure that no one is above the law.”

They will do none of the above.

It follows from the fundamental principle of the rule of law that the basic principles of government should be established without knowing which party or faction will benefit from them and which will suffer the harm.

The idea of ​​term limits, on the other hand, is clearly designed to offset the effects of the Democrats losing the 2016 election and giving Donald Trump three Supreme Court nominations. (The left didn’t campaign for term limits when Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who joined the court in 1993 and had already served for more than 20 years, died—it rooted for her.)

No one will have more confidence in the court after it has been limited to partisan purposes.

If the Romans created a desert and called it peace, the Democrats would like to blow up the mansion and call it restored.

The plan to fill the Supreme Court is the next step in Biden’s sad downfall.

A few years ago, he spoke out strongly about FDR’s attempt to expand the size of the Supreme Court — also presented as a reform intended to freshen its composition.

According to Biden, Roosevelt was “corrupted by power.”

Then he dodged pressure from the left to support expanding the Supreme Court in 2020; now, once again, he has pandered to his party’s progressive base.

But Biden never paid the full political price for his leftward swing.

Until Biden overdid it, his age helped him: It was hard to look at a frail old man who talked about being a working-class kid from Scranton and conclude he was a radical.

As a progressive and self-aware woman from Oakland, California, Kamala Harris does not have the same opportunities.

Her promise to destroy a pillar of our government will not help change her image.

Democrats are willing to do anything to confront Donald Trump’s alleged threat to our norms and institutions, except respecting them.

Between the numerous unilateral, lawless actions of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, they have done more than they should have to normalize abuses of executive power.

By never fully recognizing the results of the 2016 election, they contributed to the creation of a cycle of questioning the legitimacy of the lost elections.

By carelessly opening the border, they created a precedent for ignoring unwanted laws.

By pursuing their legal strategy against Trump, they set a precedent of distorting the legal system in order to destroy a political opponent.

And now they want to sue the Supreme Court for issuing rulings they don’t like — rulings that, by the way, may be flawed but are well-reasoned under a clear, coherent theory of constitutional interpretation.

Conservative judges with a keen eye for detail and legal history are the antithesis of everything Democrats dislike about Donald Trump.

But that doesn’t matter, because the left is not opposed to Trumpism, but to anything that stands in the way of the unchecked realization of its progressive vision.

The most fruitful line of attack on Biden was that he was old, incompetent, and a bad president. The best line of attack on Harris was that she was a radical.

By supporting the expansion of the court’s composition, he provides new evidence to support the indictment.

Twitter: @RichLowry