From the perspective of a frail, aging man, who could be forced out of office in a manner of days, a plan to end the court's right-leaning opinions may look like a career-saving ploy. But it’s much more than that, Shackelford said on Washington Watch Thursday.
Far beyond Biden, the plan is the cohesive effort of 130 different progressive groups who have come together in an attempt to remake one of America’s most important institutions, Shackelford told show host Tony Perkins.
“They’re trying a lot of different ways, and they’re all incredibly dangerous,” Shackelford said.
Biden previewed his plans over the weekend in a virtual meeting with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, The New York Times reported Tuesday.
Among Biden’s goals will be term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
Recently, Democrats tried to push through legislation that would have added four Supreme Court justices and 200 lower-court judges, Shackelford said.
“There was a big fight over that. They tried to push that through. We and others spoke up and really educated people on the history of this,” he said.
Remaking an independent judiciary is not something that can be fixed on the back end, Shackelford said.
“It’s worse than people understand because every other country where they do this, your country’s over when they do it the first time. Your Court now is not a separate branch. Your rule of law is gone, it’s just a political body. So, whatever constitutional right you think you have, you don’t because if you’re the person in power you can just add however many justices you want to take away that right.”
Been there, tried that
It's been tried in America.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to secure support for his New Deal legislation through a court-packing plan in his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill. The plan aimed to add up to six additional justices for every justice who was over 70 years old who had served 10 years or more.
The plan passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee but was referred back to committee and effectively died there.
“What they’ve gone to is a new approach which is equally radical and dangerous, and that is what you’re hearing now,” Shackelford said.
On the surface, term limits for justices may seem like a good thing.
Many justices are getting up in age. In 2020, liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died at the age of 87 while still serving the Court, opening the door for a third appointee for former President Donald Trump.
Currently, Justice Clarence Thomas is 74, and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom lean conservative, is 69. Conservative Justice John Roberts is 68. Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are in their 60s.
“Some people may think, ‘Hey, term limits for justices, that might be a good idea.’ Well, that can be debated. The Founders put it in there as life because they wanted there to be judicial independence,” Shackelford said.
Polling conducted by the First Liberty Institute last year found that more than 90% of Americans believe the independence of the judiciary is one of the country’s most critical assets.
What Democrats are really doing is responding to a string of Supreme Court rulings with which they disagree, Shackelford said.
“What they’re really doing is saying we want term limits, and we’re going to start by getting rid of the oldest justices, the ones who have been on there the longest, so Clarence Thomas goes, Samuel Alito goes, John Roberts goes. Interesting, isn’t it? Only the more conservative justices go, none of the liberals,” Shackelford said.
Ethics plan also dangerous
The proposal for an enforceable code of ethics is equally dangerous.
“Just like the Court can’t tell Congress how to do their internal affairs, the Congress has no authority, without a constitutional amendment, telling Supreme Court justices how to do their job as justices. This is a massive attack on the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and this is just about politicians that want to brow beat, attack and intimidate the justices,” Shackelford said.
It's also unconstitutional, he added.
The Post also reported that Biden is considering whether to call for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional office holders.
An amendment would be a direct response to the Court’s ruling earlier this month in which the justices voted 6-3 to grant broad immunity to presidents for official actions taken while in office – not for unofficial actions.
The ruling was seen as good news for Trump in his collection of Democrat-fueled criminal prosecutions.
A constitutional amendment making presidents more vulnerable would be much more difficult to achieve.
A proposal must first gain two-thirds approval in both the House and the Senate. It could originate from a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, something that’s never happened before.
Once the proposal is formalized, it must be approved by 38 states.
A simple, and dangerous, plan
If the Supreme Court plan is truly about Biden pandering to the far left of the Democrat Party, it’s not likely to go away even if Biden does.
Shackelford said the plan, in simple terms, is unhappy Democrats are angry at rulings and are now trying to "politicize" the high court to move future rulings to the left.
"That’s incredibly dangerous," he warned. "What we have here is so valuable I think sometimes people don’t realize if we lose it, we won’t get it back, and really our country will never be the same.”
