Vice President Kamala Harris’s recent endorsement of President Joe Biden’s call for term limits on Supreme Court justices, ethics reform and a constitutional amendment to counteract their decision on presidential immunity represents a dangerous departure from constitutional norms.
This push for reform seems less about restoring public confidence and more about advancing a left-wing agenda while distracting from the administration’s escalating failures.
The Biden-Harris administration has been vocal in its criticism of the Supreme Court, labeling it as a bastion of corruption and ideological extremism.
This rhetoric appears to be a strategic maneuver designed to undermine the Court’s authority. Such a strategy not only challenges the court’s foundational role — it is an attack on the separation of powers that undermines effective governance.
The Supreme Court is a vital component of our constitutional republic, serving as a check against the tyranny of the majority. The adage that “democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch” highlights the importance of safeguarding individual rights from majority rule.
The Supreme Court’s role is to prevent such tyranny and uphold constitutional principles.
The administration’s portrayal of the court as deeply divided and corrupt does not reflect reality. The court’s performance last term showed more consensus than suggested. Approximately 50% of cases were unanimous, and only 8% were split 6-3 along ideological lines.
In 90% of cases, at least one liberal justice was in the majority. Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were in the majority more often than conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, indicating less ideological division than claimed.
Beyond the court’s performance, the Biden-Harris administration has been at odds with the rule of law and the Supreme Court on several critical issues.
The court struck down the administration’s use of taxpayer funds for student debt relief, as well as its decisions on administrative overreach and needless regulations that contributed to rising costs, hurting small businesses and making America less affordable.
Additionally, the biggest danger to the republic is the administration working through proxies to censor dissenting views and weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.
Rather than seeking an independent judiciary, the administration appears to desire justices who are akin to politicians in robes who will legislate from the bench, enacting policies that would not pass Congress on their own merits.
This focus on the court only serves as a smokescreen for the administration’s own deficiencies. Critical issues such as border security, rising grocery prices, policies incentivizing crime and global instability have plagued the administration.
Instead of addressing these pressing concerns, the administration shifts public discourse by attacking the Supreme Court.
Proposals to impose term limits or amend the Constitution to counter specific rulings pose a significant threat to the court’s independence. The court’s legitimacy relies on its ability to make impartial decisions free from political pressures.
Altering its structure or functions to align with political agendas could undermine this independence, transforming the court from a defender of constitutional principles into a politically manipulated institution.
Mike Davis, president of the Article III Foundation, has warned: “If Kamala Harris wins the White House, she will almost certainly carry the House and Senate with her. They will likely eliminate the Senate’s legislative filibuster and pack the Supreme Court with radicals.” This scenario reflects concerns that the administration’s actions could lead to a major shift in the court’s composition and its role.
The current administration’s attacks on the court represent a deliberate attempt to weaken this foundational institution rather than a genuine concern for its integrity.
The so-called crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court is a ruse designed to obscure the Biden-Harris administration’s failures. Undermining this vital democratic institution to deflect attention from the administration’s challenges threatens our democracy more than any perceived crisis within the court itself.
Frank Ricci was the lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Ricci v Destefano. He retired as a Battalion Chief in New Haven CT. He has testified before Congress and is the Author of the book, Command Presence.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
