President Biden has a compelling new pitch that includes major
changes to the Supreme Court.
Sources tell NBC News has proposed reforms, which would need
congressional approval, include establishing term limits for justices in an
updated code of ethics that would be binding and enforceable.
MSNBC justice and legal affairs analyst Anthony Coley joins us
now is the former director of the Office of Public
Affairs and senior advisor to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
OK, I think that let me first just say people
is that is that is that your lawyer sound?
There is like yeah, yeah, I used to do the
talking points for the lawyer.
I've never I've never had the pleasure of being a
lawyer lawyer sound going on.
But this is my I used to do the talking
points this this I used to talk to lawyers when
I be in the meeting right.
So I, I, I think that this is notable, right?
However, it, it is important to, to, to say that
this would not be able to be implemented without Congress,
right?
Everything that when we haven't seen the proposal yet, it's
not out right.
But what we know about the proposal, any changes to
how the Supreme Court operates is overseen.
It needs congressional approval.
That's right.
So I will tell you here is smart policy.
You're absolutely right.
It's also smart politics, right?
There was a fascinating Fox News poll this week, Simone,
that looked at Supreme Court approval ratings and other things.
Supreme Court now has a 60% disapproval rating, the highest
ever, 38% approve of their job.
But even more importantly, this this poll found broad widespread
approval for both term limits and mandatory retirement age.
And this tells me, Michael tells me, Alicia, it tells
me that people are paying attention to this court in
ways that I don't think Donald Trump and the Republican
campaign appreciated that people are paying attention to it.
So my hope here is that whatever Joe Biden comes
up with that is not just policy points in a
white paper that they stick on the shelf, that they
this a central plank of their campaign, right where they
are focused on a fight for our freedoms and our
future.
They're fighting against forces, all forces, Simone, that would take
us back and not move us forward.
You, you make that point, you know, about where we
are, where Americans see the court right now.
And your general view is they don't like it, right?
The Biden campaign has laid out these proposals.
They they don't involve any fundamental change to the court
in terms of its size.
In other words, moving it from the current 9 to
13, I've, I've talked to some folks in the MAGA
space who says that's exactly what Trump wants to do,
despite what they're saying from 99 to 13 so that
you have a 10/3 conservative court well into the rest
of this century.
So I I think I think to your point, the
reality was supposed about to leave.
I gather my items so I can go because Alicia,
this is crazy.
But wait a minute.
But it makes but it makes sense.
It makes logical sense.
Despite what you think, you're hearing from the right, right
about all the you know, they, you know, the left
wants to expand the court and all these other things.
That's part of their playbook.
I mean, how do you lock in right the court
for the rest to the end of this century?
I mean, when you you now put four new 40
year olds on the court.
I mean, so to your point about what the American
people are maybe appreciating more than the Trump team may
think they are, those aspects of what this court will
look like after this election starts to matter.
That's right.
And there there's an important history lesson here.
And I want to make sure that people, your viewers
understand, Michael, that this did not happen overnight.
This conversation that you just mentioned, this super majority that
we now have, if you trace history back to the
Reagan administration and you look at Attorney General Edwin Meese,
he put together a blueprint about how conservatives could use
the courts to enact a conservative policy agenda through the
court system.
And so that was 1985, I believe it was when
Reese was Reagan's second attorney general.
And so we are now at a point where with
this conservative supermajority, Michael, we have people on this court
who don't belong on this court.
Neil Gorsuch, I would argue, Amy Comedy Barrett.
We have people on this court making decisions who should
be recused because of ethical conflicts.
And so we have a conservative super majority that is
doing what Edwin Meese wanted them to do, prime the
pump to happen back in 1985, which is using the
courts and the judicial process to enact a conservative agenda
that's taking away people's rights.
That's how we got rid, that's how they got rid
of Roe V.
Wade and so many other things.
I was going to use repro as the example.
We've only got a little less than a minute left.
But I also want to connect some other dots with
you, Anthony, which is this is from Melissa Murray.
Justice Thomas strikes again.
Not only did a majority of the court give presidents
almost unfettered license in the immunity case, Justice Thomas concurred
separately to question the constitutionality of the special counsel.
He laid the table and Judge Cannon took a seat.
Right.
Oh, the curious case of island Cannon.
She should.
You know, I'm going to grab my stuff and go.
Yeah.
I mean, you want to talk about someone who has
ignored precedent, right?
I mean, there were eight different judges, Alicia, appointed by
Republicans and Democrats who have already ruled on this issue
of about the appointment of a special counsel.
So she is ignoring precedent.
This is what I'm talking about.
And it's the same type of thing that the Supreme
Court is doing.
They are ignoring settled law.
They are ignoring presidents to bring about the objective that
they want.
In this case, the courts clearly won't Donald Trump to
be president again and appoint justices, perhaps to the Supreme
Court, in the vein of Eileen Cannon.
And that, I think, should frighten all of us who
love our democracy and our pro Constitution.