Biden's Clash With Supreme Court Is Red Meat For Democrats

In an op-ed published on Monday, President Biden called for sweeping reforms for the Supreme Court, including term limits and a code of ethics. The Court definitely needs to be fixed, but it’ll take more than an op-ed to make that happen. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more.

Order a copy of Mike Papantonio's new book at

Subscribe to stay connected to our stories

Support us by becoming a member on YouTube

Or Support us on Patreon

Buy Ring of Fire merch

Find us on social media!

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

In an op-ed published on Monday, president Biden called for sweeping reforms for the Supreme Court, including term limits and code of ethics. The court definitely needs to be fixed, but it'll take more than an op-ed to make that happen. I've got Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins with me to talk about it. Yeah. This is an election issue. This is just being put out there so we can have people get mad about the Supreme Court, and the problem is that they're really, they're kinda really missing the big picture. This isn't gonna, I mean, people who really believe this is gonna happen, it ain't gonna happen. Okay. But anyway, let's pick it up and talk about it.

But I do agree with what he says in this op-ed, and I think honestly, most people probably do, because term limits for the Supreme Court has obviously been something for many years, the public says, yes, overwhelmingly, let's not give these weirdos a job for life. That's not a good idea no matter what industry you're in, but especially a situation like this where they can essentially overturn the executive branch, the legislative branch. Let's make sure that these people don't stay in there until their brains turn into pudding.

Well, Ginsburg, my God, they hauled her out of there in a wheelchair, on a gurney.

And people were upset when everybody said, hey, if you resign, we could actually not, and then.

And then she didn't.

There's always the fights saying, how dare you?

Well, this has zero chances of being approved. You've got a divisive Congress, they're not gonna allow for this kind of thing. The idea of saying now that there's something so different about 200 years of history, you see, it kind of, as I was reading this article, I got to think about the Warren Court. The conservatives went crazy with the Warren Court, if you think about it. It was all about separation of church and state. It was all about, everything was about civil rights, voting rights. They struck down segregation, police arrests. These were all good things, but the right went crazy about it. And what if they had raised it then? They knew then it wasn't even a possibility. Matter of fact, the last time that there's even been any, I think it was 30 years ago, Congress, they passed a bill changing their pay rate. The last time there was any kind of amendment to the Constitution. They changed it for themselves and then they said, we can't do anything else. Right?

Yeah. And it really is difficult. I don't think people fully appreciate how difficult it is to get those amendments passed. The process you have to go through, and like you pointed out, because of the division with our elected leaders, much less division as we've talked about with actual people, the division is in Washington. The division is in the state legislatures. And because of that, you're never gonna get your two thirds or three quarters that you need to agree on this because for conservatives right now, that means two of your justices are out the door, bye. You gotta go. And of course, they're not gonna do that. And the Democrats wouldn't do it if it was in their position. But again, term limits are good. And the code of ethics, this is the only court in the country.

I agree, I agree.

That doesn't have to abide by a code of ethics.

I agree with both of those points.

That's crazy.

There's no problem with term limits. I think the proposal was that every two years, a president would appoint a Supreme Court judge who would sit for 18 years. I think is what it was. And that's not unreasonable and it certainly isn't unreasonable to say you have to have your own code of ethics that you have to follow, and you gotta play the same game everybody else does. But, I guess this is purely an election talking point.

I think so.

You know, we're gonna change the Supreme Court.