Other papers say: High court reform good for U.S.

In an address to the nation about abandoning his reelection campaign, President Joe Biden mentioned Supreme Court reform as one of the priorities he would pursue in the remainder of his term. Last Monday, Biden fleshed out that commitment with proposals that deserve — but aren’t receiving — bipartisan support.

In an initiative endorsed by Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Biden proposed three changes: term limits for members of the Supreme Court, who now serve until they choose to retire; a binding and enforceable code of conduct for justices; and a “No One Is Above the Law” constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would essentially overrule the court’s disastrous decision granting immunity from criminal prosecution to Donald Trump and future former presidents for their “official acts.”

Biden’s proposals would benefit a court that has undermined its credibility with major decisions in which Republican appointees vote one way and Democratic appointees another. Further damage to the court’s image has been inflicted by a selection process for justices that has been marred by naked partisanship and the use of court appointments to engineer desired results.

Trump, who said in 2016 that he would appoint “pro-life” justices, has boasted that “I was able to kill Roe vs. Wade,” the abortion rights ruling that was overruled in 2022 in a decision joined by his three appointees.

Term limits would bring stability to the selection of justices. Biden’s proposal would have presidents appoint a justice every two years to an 18-year term. It’s ridiculous that Trump was able to appoint three life-tenured justices in a single term.

Biden’s proposal for an enforceable ethics code for Supreme Court justices follows controversies involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The justices last year finally adopted a code of conduct, but it lacks an enforcement mechanism.

Finally, Biden’s endorsement of a constitutional amendment to rein in presidential immunity faces considerable hurdles. But the court invited such an effort with its reckless ruling on presidential immunity.

Predictably, Republicans oppose court reform. Biden and Harris shouldn’t let such rejection deter them from educating the public about the value to the country of Supreme Court reform; it shouldn’t be presented primarily as a way for Democrats to achieve more influence over the court.

The changes would have benefits for both parties, because it ensures that luck doesn’t dictate which party gets appointments.

The Supreme Court plays a vital role in this constitutional republic, but its continued legitimacy depends on a perception by the public that the justices aren’t politicians in black robes. Biden’s proposals offer a path to addressing that crisis of credibility.