Biden's Supreme Court reform is unconstitutional

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer and Elie Mystal at The Nation is, but he was wrong two weeks ago when this was rumored, and Liberalmonger Joe is wrong now.

Term limits for justices are unconstitutional. The "good behavior clause" seems clear.

Update: Constitutional law scholar professor Erwin Chemerinsky agrees with me:

The problem with term limits for Supreme Court justices, and certainly ones that would apply to the current justices, is that they would require a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has long said, starting with McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 and increasingly in recent years, that history and tradition are important in interpreting the Constitution. The tradition has always been that a Supreme Court justice holds the position for life, unless the justice resigns or is impeached and removed. Article III, Section 1, makes that clear: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Can't be clearer than that.

For that matter, arguably, so is a binding code of ethical conduct.

And, the "no immunity for presidents"?

I've said it before. Blame Watergate and a legally nugatory OAG Office of Legal Counsel position. 

Now, of course, it could be made constitutional, by amendment. Different story.

On Chemerinsky, unfortunately, he transitions to a duopoly-based plea to beat Trump without looking at larger issues of how "librul" Supreme Court justices have been less than perfect on the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments, among others, or how other issues of court reform are also needed.

==

An in-depth brand new post challenging further, and generally tribalist, nuttery on this issue by the likes of Law Dork Chris Geidner, is now up.