Courthouse News Service (“‘An assault on American democracy’: Democrats vow action after SCOTUS rules for broad presidential immunity“):
In the hours after the Supreme Court ruled Monday that presidents, including former President Donald Trump, cannot be held criminally liable for official acts, Democratic members of Congress issued grave warnings for what the high court decision could mean for democracy.
Lawmakers accusing the court’s conservative majority of carrying water for Trump even suggested legislative action was on the way to hold the justices to account.
[…]
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has accused some of the high court’s justices of acting on the whims of conservative legal activists, slammed the decision as awarding not only Trump but also all future presidents legal cover to abuse the levers of power.
[…]
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said she would file articles of impeachment next week when lawmakers return from their Independence Day recess.
“The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,” she said. “Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.”
Congress has the power to impeach justices of the Supreme Court — but it was unclear Monday who exactly Ocasio-Cortez would try to remove. Under House rules, the New York Democrat could bring articles impeachment up as a privileged motion, forcing a vote on the move even in the Republican-controlled chamber.
Axios (“Democrats vow to get ‘aggressive’ with SCOTUS after Trump ruling“):
What they’re saying: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), in a statement reacting to the ruling, said House Democrats “will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity” in response.
- The aim, he said, will be to “ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.”
- Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said it is “incumbent upon the Legislative Branch to preserve the constitutional foundation of our democracy as three co-equal branches of government.”
Zoom in: House Democrats are proposing a variety of Supreme Court overhaul measures — all long-shots, especially given GOP control of the House — in response to the ruling.
- Goldman pressed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to hold a vote on his bill establishing an independent ethics counsel for the Supreme Court.
- Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) floated expanding the court and passing a binding code of ethics, while Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) called to pass term limits for justices.
- Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said he will introduce a constitutional amendment to “reverse SCOTUS’ harmful immunity decision and ensure that no president is above the law.”
Newsweek (“Democrats Move to Expand Supreme Court After Trump Immunity Ruling“):
In a statement responding to the court’s ruling, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said House Democrats “will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court.”
The aim will be to “ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution,” he said.
Rep. Hank Johnson, of Virginia, called on Congress to pass legislation that would expand the court from nine to 13 justices, as well as other legislation that would require justices to adopt a binding code of conduct. The judges adopted a code of conduct last year following sustained criticism over undisclosed gifts and trips to some justices, but it lacks any means of enforcement.
“This ruling, and this session of the court, has been brutally assaultive on democracy and the rule of law, and we must expand the court and pass term limits to protect what constitutional order remains intact,” Johnson said in a statement in response to the immunity ruling.
Johnson “has been calling for court expansion well before this latest ruling on immunity,” a spokesperson for the congressman told Newsweek. “Wealthy special interests have corrupted the Republican supermajority on the Supreme Court—making it unethical and unaccountable. Now those special interests are getting what they paid for: a Supreme Court majority that protects the wealthy and powerful, while taking away rights from everyone else. We need to reform the Supreme Court, so it protects the rights of all Americans by reducing the influence of wealthy, special interests.”
Expanding the court is needed “to immediately change the court’s makeup in a way that reduces the power of wealthy special interests and restore balance,” the spokesperson said.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, of New Jersey, said lawmakers “must take all available measures to reign in the increasingly unfettered power of this radical court, including a binding code of ethics and expanding the number of justices.”
She said that six people “who were never elected cannot be allowed to continue destroying our democracy.”
The court is “beholden to right-wing groups and the billionaire mega-donors that fund them,” Minnesota Senator Tina Smith wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
“The Supreme Court is broken. The remedy is clear. Expand the Court.”
As a practical matter, all of this is posturing, at best.
The Justices in the majority broke no law and, indeed, aren’t accused of violating the law. Granting that impeachment is ultimately a political process rather than a criminal one, there’s nothing like a House majority to impeach, let alone a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate for removal.
Packing the Court would be much easier but, again, isn’t going to happen. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to set the size of the Supreme Court and, while 9 has been the custom for most of our history, it’s not set in stone. But the House has a slim Republican majority and I can’t imagine a single one voting for the measure. Passing it in the Senate would require eliminating the filibuster and getting Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on board; that’s not happening.
Alas, we’re at the point where the Supreme Court is at risk of illegitimacy. Before this term even began, a narrow majority (54%) of Americans had an unfavorable view of the institution. More importantly, there is a wide partisan gap in the perception, with Democrats overwhelmingly viewing it as a partisan institution.
“How much do you trust the Supreme Court to operate in the best interests of the American people?” only 53% said “a great deal” or “fair amount,” down from nearly 70% in 2019. But there is now a stark contrast between those of each major political party. Only 39% of Democrats said they trust the court a great deal or fair amount, while 72% of Republicans did — a 43% gap.
That gap will certainly grow after recent rulings.
I’m not a partisan these days and am less outraged by the rulings than many of the commentators here. But even I find it harder to see them as based on honest jurisprudence rather than motivated reasoning. Unlike many commenters, I don’t see the Republican-appointed Justices as pro-Trump activists or in the pockets of plutocrat benefactors.* Rather, as alluded to in my earlier post, “Presidential Immunity and the Catch-22 of American Politics,” I see them as having an almost academic view of the law detached from the realities of governing a modern state.
Regardless of outcomes, I’ve believed the Supreme Court too powerful as long as I’ve paid attention enough to have an opinion—some four decades now. The fact that we’ve gotten to the point where partisans are trying to convince even relatively young Justices to time their retirement so that a President of the same party can replace them—much less refuse to allow the opposite-party President to appoint them in an election year—demonstrates the degree to which the makeup is seen as existential.
*But, of course, the fact that some of them have wealthy benefactors naturally invites that perception.
