The independence and trust in the judiciary are the main pillars of a functioning democracy. Today, this crucial pillar is riddled with cracks. The reform should have started in 1987 when public views of the Supreme Court became significantly more negative than positive. It should have certainly been addressed in 2022 when the approval rating dropped below 50%. However, despite the evident need for change, for years it never got off the ground, due to countless subjective and several objective reasons.

Demanding reform today, given this history, appears more as an act of political maneuvering than genuine concern for judicial integrity. It is unfortunate when leaders use the objective necessity of Supreme Court reform as a tool for political gain, thereby discrediting necessary reforms and exacerbating polarization.

Despite these challenges, court decisions must remain reliable for the absolute majority; otherwise, democracy ceases to function. When two successive heads of the executive branch harshly criticize the court's objectivity, it signals a situation spiraling out of control and a critically high threat of a complete collapse of the governing structure.

Historical Attempts at Supreme Court Reform

The idea of reforming the Supreme Court has a long history in American politics, marked by several notable attempts, most of which faced significant opposition and ultimately failed. Here are some key moments:

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Court-Packing Plan (1937):

• Context: Facing a Supreme Court that struck down several New Deal programs, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. The bill aimed to add one new justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70, up to a maximum of six additional justices.
• Outcome: The plan faced intense opposition from both Congress and the public, who saw it as an attempt to undermine judicial independence. Despite Roosevelt’s significant political capital, the plan failed to pass, but the controversy led to a shift in the Court's approach, making it more amenable to New Deal legislation (Washington Examiner).

Judicial Reforms in the 1950s and 1960s:

• Context: As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1980s and 1990s, Joe Biden played a crucial role in shaping the Court’s composition. He presided over contentious confirmation hearings, including those of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. During this period, there were discussions about various reforms, including term limits and ethics rules.
• Outcome: These proposals did not gain significant traction, largely due to the strong support for the Court’s role in advancing civil rights and the lack of political consensus on the need for reform (Senate Judiciary).

Biden's Tenure and Opposition to Reform:

• Context: During the Warren Court era, the Supreme Court made several landmark decisions expanding civil rights and liberties, which sparked calls for reform, particularly from conservative quarters. Proposals included limiting the Court’s jurisdiction and imposing mandatory retirement ages for justices.
• Outcome: Biden opposed significant structural changes to the Court. For instance, he criticized Roosevelt’s court-packing plan as “boneheaded” and maintained a cautious approach to any major reforms. This resistance to drastic changes reflected a broader reluctance within the political establishment to tamper with the judiciary’s structure (Washington Examiner) (Senate Judiciary).

Broader Perspective

The current political system often favors the monarchical ambitions of the president, who can become frustrated when the judiciary does not align with their agenda. This dynamic has been evident from Roosevelt's era to the present, with both Trump and Biden exhibiting similar frustrations with the Supreme Court when it ruled against their preferences.

Changing term limits, codes of ethics, and other cosmetic reforms cannot fundamentally change this situation. The president and the court should have no direct connection to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system. By advocating for these deeper reforms and emphasizing bipartisan cooperation, it is possible to restore public trust in the judiciary and strengthen its role as a cornerstone of democracy.

Conclusion:

Perhaps one of the most important elections is ahead. In November, it will be determined whether there is an alternative to confrontation. At this stage, it seems there is not, but I am ambitious and believe that an alternative exists. This alternative could emerge if we can overcome two major challenges: a highly polarized political landscape and the seemingly unsolvable Supreme Court reform.

All that is required is a verbal acknowledgment of two simple facts: further discrediting the Court will destroy democracy, and further fueling polarization will destroy society. This kind of recognition is a real challenge for any politician, but history is made by those who can transform challenges into opportunities.