Politics

Litman: With Supreme Court reform ideas, Biden is playing the long game

Published

1 year ago

July 29, 2024

Litman: With Supreme Court reform ideas, Biden is playing the long game

The first and easiest question to answer with respect to the package of Supreme Court reform measures that President Biden announced Monday is whether there is any hope of their passage or enactment by the current Congress.

There is not.

With Congress hopelessly polarized and the Supreme Court hopelessly politicized, there is no chance of action on Biden’s proposals in the coming months, and the administration well understands that point.

Indeed, before Biden even unveiled them in a speech at the LBJ Presidential Library in Texas, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson pronounced them “dead on arrival.”

Why then choose now to introduce them? After all, Biden has steadfastly resisted pleas from progressives to try to reform the court — and he has been under pressure since he took office, because President Trump had just tilted the court to the right by appointing three justices.

The straightforward explanation for the timing is to make the Supreme Court, now quite possibly the most unpopular of all federal governmental institutions, a focus of the election, which would presumably nudge voters toward Vice President Kamala Harris.

It was no surprise (and presumably exactly what Biden and Harris wished) when Trump came out with a strident defense of the court.

But the proposals shouldn’t be dismissed as a mere political gesture. Biden and the Democrats are also playing the long game, looking in particular to make the court a campaign issue. Then if they win control of both chambers and the White House, they can portray their election as a mandate for substantial reforms.

Biden’s proposals are in three basic areas. First, ethics, responding to the series of scandals involving eyebrow-raising or nakedly partisan conduct by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Second, time of service and method of appointment, which Biden proposes be changed to 18 years per justice and a fixed allotment of two new justices per presidential term. And third, the court’s recent, stunningly broad immunity opinion in the Jan. 6 Trump prosecution brought by the Justice Department.

Biden announced the reforms in a Washington Post op-ed that, interestingly, led with the immunity decision, which Biden wrote transgressed a bedrock principle of the nation: “No one is above the law.”

Indeed it does, but Biden and Harris, who was quick to endorse the proposals, obviously have calculated that of all the court’s recent unpopular moves, the immunity decision most offends the most American voters who might swing toward Harris.

Biden’s proposal recognizes that the decision can be overcome only by a constitutional amendment. I think that’s dubious; a careful reading of the Supreme Court’s sweeping immunity decision suggests it is ultimately anchored in perceived good government principles dressed up as constitutional law.

The problem here, as in one way or another with all the proposals, is the firmly entrenched principle that the Supreme Court has the last word. (One thinks of Justice Robert Jackson’s famous line “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”)

So that leaves the famously cumbersome process of a constitutional amendment, which requires either two-thirds of both houses or the states to request and three-quarters of the states to ratify.

The most recent constitutional amendment, the 27th, took more than 200 years to ratify. The Equal Rights Amendment, which was first proposed in 1923 to guarantee the rights of Americans regardless of their sex, still has not passed.

The ethics provision of the Biden package probably has the strongest chance of passing. It is conspicuous that the Supreme Court justices — alone among government officials — get to make and apply their own rules on issues such as whether they can take or must disclose gifts from parties who may have an agenda with the court. Although the court adopted ethics rules for itself last fall, they have no teeth. Justice Elena Kagan just last week called for the rules to be subject to an enforcement regime other than the justices themselves.

But in my view, the most important component of Biden’s package is his proposal to change Supreme Court terms from lifetime to 18 years, and, with the consistent rhythm of that span, guarantee each president precisely two appointments.

The design of the reform is to obviate the Armageddon quality of current confirmation battles. Lifetime appointments create very high stakes, leading to carefully curated fairly young nominees who can serve 40 years or more and have enormous, longstanding influence, as with the relatively young cadre of Trump appointees.

Term limits would prevent the imbalance that results if one president makes many appointments and others make few. Democrats are understandably frustrated at the bad luck — and GOP obstructionism — that allowed Republican presidents to choose six of the current nine justices, in a country in which more people identify as Democrats than as Republicans and in which Democratic presidential candidates have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections.

This proposal would do nothing to alleviate the current imbalance. Progressives had been pushing Biden to instead propose four additional seats on the court to undo the current uber-conservative hammerlock. The Constitution permits such an expansion, but the history of FDR’s court packing plan and similar efforts obviously persuaded Biden that the approach would freight the package with political controversy and long odds that would diminish the clean appeal of the rest of the provisions.

As for the court, today’s proposals only reinforce the grave loss of confidence it has brought on with its own overreaching. As a matter of raw power, it can continue on its path and remain oblivious to its many self-inflicted wounds. But Supreme Court history teaches that whatever its recognized authority in individual cases, it is untenable for it to operate indefinitely so against the grain of the American people.

As Alito said in an overheard comment, “one side or the other is going to win.”

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

3 hours ago

January 10, 2026

Press Room

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House.

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Michael Dorgan is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business.

You can send tips to michael.dorgan@fox.com and follow him on Twitter @M_Dorgan.

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

4 hours ago

January 10, 2026

Press Room

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

15 hours ago

January 10, 2026

Press Room

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs.

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud. (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.