PROPOSAL CALLING FOR SUPREME COURT REFORM IS ALREADY RECEIVING SOME MAJOR PUSHBACK.

SOME OF IT COMES FROM CURRENT JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH WHO ADVISED THE PRESIDENT IN A RECENT INTERVIEW TO, QUOTE, BE CAREFUL IN ADDITION TO TARGETING RECENT COURT DECISIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY.

BIDEN'S PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO ADDRESS TERM LIMITS FOR JUSTICES AND IN MANDATORY ETHICS RULE.

HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL ARE HAROLD KRANTZ, A LAW PROFESSOR AT THE ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY'S CHICAGO.

CAN'T COLLEGE OF LAW.

WILLIAM HOWELL, A PROFESSOR IN AMERICAN POLITICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

AND DAVID APPLEGATE AND ATTORNEY AND MEMBER OF THE CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERTARIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION, THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY.

GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US.

FIRST, LET'S GET YOUR YOU KNOW, TO THIS THIS PLAN, WHAT IS WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT?

FIRST OF ALL, CAROL, CAROL, START WITH YOU, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS HAPPEN SOON.

SO THIS IS SETTING THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE.

IT'S SUGGESTING THAT THE PARTY SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ALERT TO THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT.

LOT OF REASONS SO THAT MAYBE WE CAN GET INTO LATER.

BUT IT IS SETTING THE AGENDA.

AND I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE WOULD BE A COALITION REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS DOWN THE ROAD THAT COULD LEAST AGREE TO THE TERM LIMITS.

PART OF THE PROPOSAL?

WELL, YOU I I AGREE.

WHEN BIDEN 4 YEARS AGO FOR OFFICE, IT WAS UNDER THE PROMISE TO RESTORE SOME STABILITY TO OUR DEMOCRACY, TO SHORE UP OUR INSTITUTIONS AND AND HE SAID THAT WORK ASIDE FOR THE MOST PART WHILE PRESIDENT AND SO LATEST TERM.

HE'S PUTTING IT FRONT AND CENTER.

THE WORK OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORM IS NOT THE WORK OF YOU KNOW, 1, ONE ADMINISTRATION.

IT'S REALLY THE WORK OF A GENERATION.

IT REQUIRES A LOT OF COALITION BUILDING.

A LOT STATES SETTING I THINK IT'S HEALTHY FOR POLITICS.

I'M GLAD TO SEE.

IT'S COMING LATEST HER.

DAVID APPLEGATE.

I AGREE WITH HAROLD AND BILL THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON.

MY OWN TAKE ON HIS IS THAT IT'S UNNECESSARY THAT THE ATTACKS ON THE COURT ARE LARGELY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY THE THE ADMINISTRATION AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH SOME OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

AND IT IS THE THOSE ATTACKS ON INTEGRITY OF THE COURT THAT ARE UNDERMINING FAITH IN THE COURT.

I DON'T THINK THESE PROPOSALS ARE NECESSARY.

I DO THINK THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR TERM LIMITS FOR THE JUSTICES BUT IT MAY BE A LITTLE KNOWN FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY DOES HIM.

BUT YOU'RE IN A CODE OF CONDUCT AND WHICH 9 JUSTICES SIGNED OFF LAST NOVEMBER.

THAT PUTS IN WRITING OUT THERE FOR PUBLIC VIEW.

THE CODE OF CONDUCT THAT THEY HAVE LARGELY FALLEN FOR GENERATIONS.

HAROLD KRANTZ, THAT POINT, IF THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY HAS A CODE OF ETHICS THAT JUSTICE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING, DO WE THINK TO THINK WE NEED A NEW ONE?

WE NEED A WELL, OBVIOUSLY THE DISCLOSURES ABOUT JUSTICE THOMAS AND ALITO IN PARTICULAR HAVE SCANDALIZED.

PART OF THE POPULISTS AND THEY DON'T THINK THAT THE MEMBERS, THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE MONEY FOR FREE AND THEN DECIDE CASES THAT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHOM THEY'VE TAKEN VACATIONS WITH.

AND THERE IS MINIMUM APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE COURT.

IT WASN'T.

AND SO IF THE JUSTICES ARE GOING THUMB THEIR NOSE AT THIS KIND OF ETHICS RULE, THEN MAYBE CONGRESS HAS TO DO SOMETHING MORE STRINGENT.

THEY BE EXEMPTED THE SUPREME COURT IN PAST ETHICS DETERMINATION.

SO THEY FOUND LOWER COURT JUDGES.

MAYBE THEY INCREASE ENHANCE IT IN TO COVER THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AS WELL.

DAVID IS IMPOSING ADDITIONAL CODE OF ETHICS.

IS THAT EVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED AT MY OWN VIEW?

IS THAT IT DOES NOT.

IT INFRINGES ON THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LOWER COURT JUDGES IS THAT THOSE JUDGES ARE CREATIONS OF CONGRESS BECAUSE TO TO SHUN ITSELF.

CREATES THE SUPREME COURT AND SETS THE TERMS OF SO I DON'T THINK THE CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY HAS POWER ACT HERE.

AND I PLEAD TO TOO UNNECESSARY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, WHICH THEN, OF COURSE, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE.

WILLIAM, HOW DO YOU THINK THESE REFORMS ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AS WE HEARD FROM DAVID?

YOU KNOW, SOME FOLKS HAVE BEEN UNHAPPY WITH DECISIONS THAT THE COURT HAS MADE.

WE CAN NAME SEVERAL OF IS THIS A REACTION TO SHE IN SUMMARY SHORE.

IT ALWAYS IS THE CASE THAT ARGUMENT ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS ARE INFORMED BY KUZ ACCESS BEING GORED WHO WHO STANDS POLITICALLY TO BENEFIT THAT IS THAT IS TRUE.

BUT THEY'RE NONETHELESS ARE REAL REASONS TO THINK ABOUT THE NEED FOR REFORM OR INSTITUTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO TERM LIMITS, WHICH IS TO MY MIND, THE REAL YOU HERE FOR THE MOST PART, THERE ARE STRONG ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT TERM LIMITS FOR GOVERNORS OR MAYORS, THE WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE TO STEP FORWARD AND RUN FOR THESE OFFICES, HAVE INCENTIVE FACE OF THAT.

THAT TERM LIMITS CREATE MOST PART OF BAD.

I THINK MOST VOCAL SCIENTISTS TO COME OUT AND NOT GET BEHIND THEM OR TALKING ABOUT 18 YEAR TERM LIMIT AT THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LEVEL, THOUGH THOSE CONCERNS ATTENUATE QUITE A BIT.

AND BIG BENEFIT THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THIS KIND OF INTERVENTION TO MY MIND IS THAT WOULD REGULAR EYES THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS THAT IS PRESIDENTS WOULD ROUTINELY BE ABLE TO COUNT ON BEING ABLE TO MAKE TOO APPOINTMENTS TO THE COURT.

AND RIGHT NOW IT'S BY WHO HAS WON 3 FOR NONE AND AND THIS WON'T DO GIVEN JUST HOW INVOLVED THE SUPREME COURT IS IN ALL MANNER OF POLICYMAKING BECAUSE IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WERE OFTEN WAITING ON ON A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO EITHER DECIDE TO RESIGN WHILE THEY'RE ABLE TO DO SO OR THEY DIE ON THE BENCH.

WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION CURRENTLY SAY ABOUT HOW LONG A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SERVES?

SO THIS AND, CAROL, THAT THE CUTS INTO THE CONSTITUTION YOU KNOW, LIFETIME APPOINTMENT.

AND SO WE WOULD REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR THIS TICKET TO GO THROUGH.

WE HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE TERM LIMITS FOR PRESIDENTS.

AND I I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD REASONS SUGGESTED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, TO DECIDE TO REALIZE APPOINTMENT PROCESS, MAKE SURE IT'S EVEN OVER TIME.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH SOMEONE IN OFFICE FOR OVER 18 YEARS AS A HUGE FIGHT.

NOW WITH A JUDGE IN LOWER COURT, ONE STEP BELOW WHOSE 95 AND SHE'S SUED THE ENTIRE REST OF THE COURT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S TIME FOR TO STEP DOWN AND SHE THINKS NOT.

AND IT'S IT'S UGLY.

AND WHO KNOWS GETS INTO THE MAYOR TO THAT.

BUT THIS IS JUST A SOUND MECHANISM FOR GOING FORWARD.

IT AIRS, RIGHT.

I REALLY WANT TO DISAGREE WITH BOTH MY COLLEAGUES HERE, WHICH IS THAT THIS WOULD NOT SAW PURPORTED PROBLEM.

NUMBER JUSTICE COULD DIE.

RESIGN OR RETIRE SHORT OF 18 YEARS AND DO THAT FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS.

JUST JUST EVEN PRIOR DIE FOR POLITICAL REASONS, RESIGN OR RETIRE AN ABSOLUTELY JUST AS JUSTICE BREYER STEP DOWN SO THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN COULD APPOINT HIS SUCCESSOR ON WATCH.

THIS WOULD, IN MY OPINION, EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE NOW YOU YOU HAVE.

PRESIDENT'S KNOWING EXACTLY WHEN SOMEBODY WOULD BE UP, SOMEBODY ELSE COULD STEP DOWN.

THE 2 TERM PRESIDENT COULD APPOINT 4 OUT OF 9 JUSTICES AND THEN PRESUMING THAT PRESIDENT, HE HAD THE SENATE IN HIS FAVOR COULD HAVE 2 MORE JUSTICES STEP DOWN AND CONFIRM 2 MORE AND THEREBY HAD 6 9.

THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT PRESUMES THAT THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A POLICY-MAKING BODY.

IT IS NOT.

IT'S NOT TOO MANY LEGISLATURE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE TALKED ABOUT WHO VOTED, WHICH WAY WHERE JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO SAY, YEAH, I I VOTE FOR THIS RESULT.

TYPE OF FOR THIS RESULT.

THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO DECIDE CASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS AND THE LAW, BUT ROUTINELY DOES BEHAVE LIKE A POLICY-MAKING BODY.

IT ENGAGES IN INTERVENES.

IT ALL MEAN FOR POLICY DISPUTES.

AND SO IF WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE POINT PERCEIVED HAVING IT BE REGULARLY TIE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I MEAN, SO I THINK THAT THESE CONCERNS THAT YOU COULD RETIREMENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND.

BUT HOLDING OUT THE ROLE THAT THEY OUGHT TO PAY WITHOUT EYE TOWARD WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO BEEN THINKING ABOUT INSTITUTION THAT THE FIGHT, HOW THE APPOINTMENTS MADE BUT MY POINT IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT SUCCUMB TO THE NOTION THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL BODY THAT'S GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR US.

WE SHOULD GET BACK TO DECIDING SHERYL.

AND WANT I WANT GET BACK TO LETTING WE THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT THE LAW IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE LET THE EXECUTIVE ENFORCE.

THAT YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS FUNDAMENTALLY DO IT IS TRYING TO INCREASE ITS OWN AGENDA.

IT'S TAKEN ACTIVE STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN DECIDE CASES THEY WANT TO DECIDE TO ACTING MORE IN A PARTISAN MANNER, WHICH I THINK EXACERBATES THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE 18 YEAR TERM SECOND, TAKE EVERYTHING.

WE AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT CERTAINLY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

AND IF IT DOES HELP THE STATURE OF THE DISH TO SHARE.

THAT'S OFTEN A GOOD.

DAVID.

IF YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS AN EXTERNAL CODE THAT IS PER THAT IS IMPOSED ON THE SUPREME COURT, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY IS WE'RE MOVING OVER TO SORT OF LIKE THE THE CODE OF ETHICS VERSUS OBVIOUSLY THE TERM THE SUPREME COURT WOULD STILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS'S DECISION TO IMPOSE SAID CODE OF ETHICS OR SAID REQUIREMENT IS EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL.

WHAT MIGHT THAT LOOK LIKE?

I MEAN, TO ME, THAT WOULD PARTICULARLY FARCICAL YOU TELL YOU.

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO AGREE TO.

AND I SAY YOU HAVE NO POWER TO AGREE TO THAT.

SO I'M GOING TO IGNORE IT.

I MEAN, THIS IS VERY MUCH NOW LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SIGHTING.

IT'S NOT GOING TO ABIDE BY A SUPREME COURT DECISION ON STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS.

LOOK FOR WAYS TO GET AROUND IT.

THAT SIMPLY UNDERMINES FAITH IN OUR INSTITUTIONS.

AND I BELIEVE THE CONGRESS TRYING TO IMPOSE A COURT TAKES ON THE COURT, WHICH THE COURT THE DENTIST REGARD WOULD FURTHER AND MINE TAKE INSTITUTION WHICH ALL 3 OF US, I THINK LIKE TO SEE A.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF COME UP WITH A MORE ROBUST SET OF CIVICS CODE?

I I JUST REALLY READ THE CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED NOVEMBER 13TH OF LAST YEAR.

AND IT LOOKS PRETTY RIGOROUS DEBATE.

SO WE DO SO WERE WELL AND GOOD RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF THINK COURTS BEHAVIOR IN HONORING THE CODE THAT THEY'VE WELL, WHAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT THIS CODE IS COME OUT PARTLY IN RESPONSE TO TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU GENTLEMAN BROUGHT UP.

AND I THINK IT'S JOHN ROBERTS WAY MY JUSTICE THOMAS IN PARTICULAR, NOT SO MUCH JUST WE DO.

I THINK LIKE CONTROVERSY IS A TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT.

BUT I THINK THIS IS JOHN ROBERTS WAY TO PUTTING HIS HAND SAID, LOOK, GUYS, WE HAVE GOT TO GET THIS RIGHT.

IF WE DON'T, WE HAD BIGGER PROBLEMS.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT IS WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT.

I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT MORE TO TALK WITH THIS ISSUE GOING