Somebody in the White House woke up over the weekend and discovered that they had been transported to the golden sunshine and verdant fields of DGAF Island. After several decades spent in the throes of Institutional Love as regards the Supreme Court, the president who, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, couldn't bring himself to investigate fully the entire array of charges against Clarence Thomas, and who oversaw the elevation of William Rehnquist to Chief Justice and the virtually unanimous installation on the Court of Antonin Scalia, now has called for the most sweeping reform of the Supreme Court since FDR tried to pack it. Or, perhaps, since the Judiciary Act of 1801. And he is not shy about the reasons why. From The Washington Post:

But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office. If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences. And that’s only the beginning.
On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.

Hi there, Ginny Thomas. Yes, those are footsteps you're hearing. Why do you ask?

The president's prescription for straightening out this ethical and political landfill is made up of some easily understandable solutions.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced...Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

No, he's not calling for an expanded Court, but nobody can feel the ambition behind this plan and not think that an expanded Court may be the gun on the table in Act One. And, yes, even these common sense reforms stand less of a chance in this current Congress than the Wilmot Proviso does, and it died in the Senate almost 180 years ago. But the issue us clearly engaged for this campaign, It gives downballot Democrats something very substantial to run on. And it ties the current Court securely to MAGA World with iron bands. After all, the GOP has a vice-presidential candidate who doesn't believe in anything at all about governing, and a presidential candidate who doesn't understand anything at all about governing. Go ahead, says the president, who is still the president, from under a shady tree on DGAF Island. Run against ethics. Run against yet another policy favored by huge majorities of the voting public. I'll just sit here, so contentedly, and watch the river flow.

Headshot of Charles P. Pierce
Charles P. Pierce

Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.