President Biden’s initiative to establish Supreme Court term limits and an enforceable ethics code could help restore much needed public trust in the court. Just as importantly, it’s a reminder that we need not surrender to a court that has aggrandized itself at every turn.

The president’s proposals will require congressional approval, and that in turn highlights the role every American can play in reining in a court that has tilted into ideological activism: The key is what we do on Nov. 5. You were probably taught that the justices have the final say on our laws, but in reality that power belongs to voters.

To start, there is no question that the court would be better off with term-limited justices who can no longer play politics with the timing of their retirements, and with an ethics code that has teeth and could eliminate even the appearance of impropriety in the justices’ behavior.

But the president should be asking for more — congressional action that responds specifically to the alarming decisions issued by the court’s current conservative supermajority.

Its most dangerous ruling, delivered on July 2, was its holding that Donald Trump enjoys “presumptive” immunity from criminal prosecution based on his “official acts.” The upshot is that the court, not a jury of ordinary Americans, will likely get to make the final call on Trump’s accountability for his 2020 election falsehoods and schemes.

In another sweeping decision, the court set aside four decades of precedent and arrogated power long held by federal agencies. Instead of deferring to, say, the Environmental Protection Agency on the technical how-tos of applying laws like the Clean Water Act, the court claimed that it should have the final say — expertise and democratic accountability be damned.

The court similarly substituted its judgment for the otherwise apparent meaning of federal statutes by upending what constitutes a “machine gun” and obstruction of official proceedings. As Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in her dissent from the latter ruling, the majority had to do “textual backflips to find some way — any way” — to get to its preferred outcome. In doing so, it blocked a crucial gun safety measure and narrowed the basis for charging those involved with the Capitol attack on Jan. 6.

Fortunately, as supreme as the Supreme Court is, it doesn’t have to be the final word on these cases. The court gets to interpret the law, but we voters, through our representatives, decide what that law is.

For those who object to the current court’s power grab, that means showing up at the polls this year and voting for a Democratic majority in Congress, despite reasonable, good-faith disagreements with President Biden and his party. Those concerns will matter little if an unaccountable Supreme Court continues to aggrandize itself at the people’s expense.

Here’s how a Democratic majority could push back.

In the presidential immunity case, one worry is that even if lower courts deem much of Trump’s Jan. 6 conduct to have been unofficial, and thus subject to prosecution, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices will simply band together to reverse that determination.

And yet Article III of the Constitution allows Congress to make “exceptions” from the Supreme Court’s power to hear appeals. A reestablished Democratic House majority could pass a law declaring the lower court’s ruling final, and a Democratic majority in the Senate could do the same by voting for a one-time suspension of the filibuster, just as the Republican majority did when it confirmed Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

As for the court’s takeover of deference to federal agencies, a Democratic majority in Congress could amend the Administrative Procedure Act to unambiguously grant agency experts the benefit of the doubt on reasonable regulations. Likewise, a Democratic Congress could enact legislation to override the court’s aberrant interpretations of laws regulating machine guns and defining the obstruction of official proceedings.

If voters in November keep the court in mind as they mark their ballots, they can not only undo this term’s most harmful decisions, but also send a forceful message to the power-hungry justices: The highest court in the land can either have the final word on the hard cases that divide us, or it can lurch the law far to the right. But it can’t do both.

Aaron Tang is a law professor at UC Davis and a former law clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He is the author of “Supreme Hubris: How Overconfidence Is Destroying the Court — and How We Can Fix It.” @AaronTangLaw.”

Fox News host Jesse Watters recently conducted a sit-down interview with former President Trump to discuss last week’s failed assassination attempt.

The interview, which will premiere on “Jesse Watters Primetime” on Monday night at 8 p.m. ET, featured both Trump and his vice presidential candidate JD Vance. Vance currently serves as a U.S. Senator representing Ohio.

The three men discussed the assassination attempt against the former president last week. Gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks shot at Trump from a roof in the middle of a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, wounding the presidential candidate on his right ear.

Trump revealed during the interview that he was not warned about Crooks by the U.S. Secret Service.

WATCH: THOUSANDS DESCEND ON MICHIGAN TOWN FOR FIRST TRUMP RALLY SINCE FAILED ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

“Mistakes were made,” Watters told Trump. “They were monitoring this guy for an hour beforehand. No one told you not to take the stage?”

“Nobody mentioned it,” the former president replied. “Nobody said it was a problem.”

“[They] could’ve said, ‘Let’s wait for 15, 20 minutes, 5 minutes.’ Nobody said…I think that was a mistake,” he added.

Trump later questioned how Crooks could get on the roof in the first place.

RNC DELEGATES, GUESTS MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT BIDEN’S POLITICAL FUTURE AMID REPORTS HE MIGHT EXIT 2024 RACE

“How did somebody get on that roof?” Trump questioned. “And why wasn’t he reported, because people saw he was on that roof.”

“When you have Trumpers screaming, the woman in the red shirt, ‘There’s a man on the roof,’ and other people, ‘There’s a man on the roof and who’s got a gun,’…that was quite a bit before I walked on the stage. And I would’ve thought someone would’ve done something about it,” Trump said.

Trump, who appeared at the Republican National Convention with a large bandage on his ear, has reportedly recovered well from the injury. On Saturday, his former physician, Texas Congressman Ronny Jackson, released a detailed report about Trump’s health.

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump is surrounded by Secret Service agents at a campaign rally, Saturday, July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

“He will have further evaluations, including a comprehensive hearing exam, as needed. He will follow up with his primary care physician, as directed by the doctors that initially evaluated him,” he continued. “In summary, former President Trump is doing well, and he is recovering as expected from the gunshot wound sustained last Saturday afternoon.”

“I am extremely thankful his life was spared. It is an absolute miracle he wasn’t killed,” Jackson added.

In the first detailed description of the wound former President Trump suffered from a would-be assassin’s bullet, his campaign put out a statement Saturday saying the round came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head.”

The description of Trump’s injury came from U.S. Rep. Ronny L. Jackson (R-Texas), who served as Trump’s White House physician.

“The bullet passed, coming less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head, and struck the top of his right ear,” Jackson, a vocal Trump supporter, wrote in the statement. “The bullet track produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear. There was initially significant bleeding, followed by marked swelling of the entire upper ear.”

Jackson said the swelling has since resolved and that the wound was healing properly.

“Based on the highly vascular nature of the ear, there is still intermittent bleeding requiring a dressing to be in place,” he wrote. “Given the broad and blunt nature of the wound itself, no sutures were required.”

Trump was first treated by the staff at a Pennsylvania hospital. Jackson said he saw Trump the night of the shooting at Trump’s residence in Bedminster, N.J. “I have been with President Trump since that time, and I have evaluated and treated his wound daily. He is doing well,” Jackson wrote.

Trump, wearing a bandage over his ear, recounted the shooting for the first time publicly Thursday night, when he formally accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

In a show of solidarity, many convention attendees wore bandages over their right ears.

“You’ll never hear it from me a second time, because it’s too painful to tell,” Trump said before describing what happened at a campaign rally July 13 in Butler, Pa.

Trump said that as he turned his head to look at a chart projected on a screen, he heard “a loud whizzing sound and felt something hit me really, really hard on my right ear.”

“I said to myself, ‘Wow, what was that? It can only be a bullet.’ And moved my right hand to my ear, brought it down. My hand was covered with blood,” he said.