The Fate of Biden’s Supreme Court Proposal May Lie with Kamala Harris
The ongoing discourse surrounding the Supreme Court has taken on renewed vigor in light of President Joe Biden's recent endorsement of sweeping changes aimed at reshaping the nation's highest court. As Vice President Kamala Harris aligns herself with this agenda, it becomes clear that her potential ascent to the presidency could carve a more assertive path toward judicial reform than her boss has thus far been willing to tread. This article dives into the nuanced dynamics of Harris's potential influence on Supreme Court reform, the obstacles she may face, and the implications for a generation eager to redefine judicial power.
Harris's Evolving Stance
Harris's endorsement of Biden's framework for Supreme Court reform marks a significant moment in her political trajectory. Historically, both Biden and Harris have faced criticism for their tepid approaches to judicial reform, especially in the wake of a Supreme Court increasingly perceived as politically motivated and ethically compromised. In a notable departure from Biden’s earlier rejection of term limits for justices in 2019, Harris has indicated a willingness to consider such proposals, illustrating a marked evolution in her stance, particularly as she prepares for a potential campaign against former President Donald Trump.
Her openness to radical changes—such as expanding the court's size—could signal a readiness to confront the increasingly conservative judicial landscape more aggressively than Biden. With seasoned campaign aide Brian Fallon, a prominent advocate for court expansion, alongside her, the potential for a more robust commitment to judicial reforms seems to be on the horizon.
A Test of Political Will
However, despite these encouraging signs, questions linger about Harris's commitment to prioritizing Supreme Court reform. Alex Aronson, executive director of Court Accountability, expresses cautious optimism, acknowledging that although Harris is better positioned than Biden, her track record in the Senate didn't showcase an acute focus on judiciary-related legislation. This raises the critical question: if Harris were to ascend to the presidency, would she expend political capital to champion reform initiatives that could face towering challenges in Congress?
Numerous advocates support reforms aimed at restoring public confidence in the Supreme Court, which has been marred by ethics scandals and contentious rulings. Harris's recent public statement on the matter reflects an understanding of the court's current crisis: “There is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court as its fairness has been called into question after numerous ethics scandals and decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent,” she articulated. This narrative aligns with a growing sentiment among younger generations who are increasingly skeptical of the court’s authority and its implications for democracy.
Understanding the Landscape
For any reform initiative to take shape, the hurdles are significant. Biden’s recent three-pronged plan—including a proposal for an 18-year term limit for justices, a binding code of conduct, and a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity—suggests a starting point for dialogue. However, the practicality of these proposals in a hyper-partisan environment is dubious, as noted by political analysts and legislative experts.
To implement these reforms, significant legislative maneuvering would be required. Many of Biden’s proposals would necessitate bipartisan support, an increasingly rare commodity. Furthermore, constitutional amendments face an arduous path, needing approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures—a daunting task in today’s polarized climate. Critics, such as Speaker Mike Johnson, have outright dismissed these proposals, branding them "dead on arrival."
The Role of Allies and Advocacy Groups
Advocates for court reform are keenly aware that the downshift of momentum under Biden has intensified the urgency surrounding judicial reforms. Groups like Demand Justice, co-founded by Fallon, played a pivotal role in advocating for a strategic overhaul of the Supreme Court following Biden’s election. The pressure from such organizations, coupled with the mobilization of public sentiment, could create an environment in which active reform becomes not only a possibility but an imperative.
Harris's existing relationships with lawmakers such as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse underscore her capacity to coalesce support around judicial reform initiatives. Their interactions suggest a recognition of her potential role as a more dynamic advocate for reform than Biden, who has often favored a more cautious, deliberative approach.
Looking Ahead: A New Era?
As Harris prepares for a potentially pivotal campaign, her evolving position on Supreme Court reform could define her political legacy. The convergence of progressive advocacy, public sentiment, and a shifting political landscape may empower her to champion structural changes that could drastically alter the judiciary's composition and its relationship with the American public.
Her leadership style and political fortitude will undoubtedly be tested if she reaches the presidency. The stakes are high, not just for Harris and the Democratic Party, but for a populace increasingly questioning the legitimacy and omnipotence of the judicial branch. As the battle over the court's future intensifies, the question becomes clear: Will Harris embrace this moment to spark the necessary reforms, or will she mirror Biden's restrained approach, leaving structural change hanging in the balance? The fate of Biden's Supreme Court proposal, it seems, may indeed lie with Harris, and her decision will shape the trajectory of American democracy for years to come.