Connect with us

News

Biden Proposes Supreme Court Reforms, Urges Term Limits and Ethics Rules

Published

on

US-President-Joe-Biden
Biden Proposes Supreme Court Reforms, Urges Term Limits and Ethics Rules

President Joe Biden has put forth a comprehensive proposal aimed at reforming the U.S. Supreme Court, urging lawmakers to introduce term limits and establish an ethics code for the nine justices. This move is intended to “restore trust and accountability” within the court, which has increasingly become a focal point of political contention.

In recent years, the Supreme Court’s influence on issues ranging from abortion to environmental regulations has highlighted its significant role in American life. The court’s justices, appointed for life and unelected, have been at the center of numerous contentious decisions.

Biden’s proposal also includes a call for a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity, challenging a recent Supreme Court ruling. Despite the unlikelihood of passing such reforms through the current U.S. Congress, Democrats see this initiative as a means to energize voters ahead of the November 2024 election.

Advertisement

In a Washington Post opinion piece, President Biden stated that the current situation “undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms.” He described the moment as standing “in a breach.”

To address these concerns, Biden advocates for ending lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Instead, he suggests that sitting presidents should appoint a new justice every two years, with each serving an 18-year term. Advocates for reform believe staggered 18-year-term limits could help depoliticize the court, making it more balanced and reflective of the population.

Additionally, President Biden is pushing Congress to implement a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices. This code would require justices to disclose gifts and refrain from overt political activities. Biden noted that “every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct,” questioning why the Supreme Court should be exempt.

Advertisement

Lastly, Biden seeks to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn a July 1 ruling that granted former President Donald Trump and other ex-presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts.” The court’s decision specified that presidents are immune for “official acts” but not for “unofficial acts.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Downing Street Indicates UK Would Arrest Netanyahu if He Visits

Published

on

Downing Street Indicates UK Would Arrest Netanyahu if He Visits

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could face arrest if he enters the United Kingdom, following an international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), according to indications from No 10.

A spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declined to comment on the specifics of Netanyahu’s case but affirmed that the government is committed to fulfilling its “legal obligations.”

The ICC issued arrest warrants on Thursday for Netanyahu, alongside former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing alleged war crimes in Gaza. As a signatory to the ICC treaty, the UK is obligated to enforce such warrants.

Advertisement

Under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the UK government must transmit ICC arrest requests to a judicial officer, who then determines whether to endorse the warrant for execution within the country.

“The government would fulfil its obligations under the act and its legal obligations under both domestic and international law,” the spokesperson said, emphasizing the UK’s commitment to its treaty obligations.

When asked if Netanyahu would be detained upon arrival in the UK, the spokesperson refrained from commenting on “hypotheticals.” However, the legal framework leaves little room for discretion if a visit occurs, given the binding nature of the treaty.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Judge Delays Sentencing for Donald Trump for the Third Time

Published

on

Judge Delays Sentencing for Donald Trump for the Third Time

A New York judge has delayed the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump for a third time as legal battles over his conviction remain unresolved. Trump’s attorneys continue to press for his conviction to be dismissed, citing presidential immunity and potential interference with his upcoming duties as president.

Originally scheduled for sentencing on November 26, Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony fraud charges. The Manhattan District Attorney, who led the prosecution, opposes efforts to overturn the conviction but has suggested delaying sentencing until after Trump’s second presidential term.

Justice Juan Merchan, presiding over the case, has paused all proceedings to review legal briefs from both sides. These submissions are due in December, but no new sentencing date has been set.

Advertisement

With Trump’s inauguration looming on January 20, the court faces increasing pressure to decide whether the conviction will stand or if sentencing will proceed.

Trump’s legal team argues that his conviction undermines the principle of presidential immunity, asserting that legal proceedings during his term would interfere with his ability to govern effectively. Critics, however, have pushed back, asserting that no one, including the president, is above the law.

This legal standoff marks another chapter in the contentious relationship between Trump and the judiciary, as the nation watches closely to see how the case unfolds in the lead-up to his second inauguration.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas Commander Over War Crimes

Published

on

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas Commander Over War Crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC’s pre-trial chamber stated that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe all three men bear responsibility for atrocities committed during the conflict between Israel and Hamas. These include allegations of murder, persecution, torture, and the use of starvation as a weapon of war.

For Netanyahu and Gallant, the charges stem from Israel’s military response to Hamas’s deadly October 7, 2023, attack, which left 1,200 Israelis dead and 251 abducted to Gaza. Gaza’s Hamas-led health ministry reports over 44,000 deaths during Israel’s subsequent military campaign.

Advertisement

The ICC accuses Deif, Hamas’s military leader, of orchestrating crimes such as murder, extermination, rape, and hostage-taking during the initial attack. Despite Israel’s claim that Deif was killed in an airstrike in July, the ICC included him in the warrants.

Reactions

  • Israel dismissed the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic” and reaffirmed its stance that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, as Israel is not a signatory to the ICC.
  • Hamas hailed the warrants for Israeli leaders as a “historic precedent,” while rejecting the charges against its own commander.
  • United States condemned the ICC’s actions, while European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called for respecting and implementing the court’s decisions.

The warrants raise questions about enforcement, as neither Israel nor Hamas recognize the ICC, and compliance depends on the court’s 124 member states. The development marks a pivotal moment in international law’s attempt to address the human toll of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.

Continue Reading

Trending