In recent discussions about Supreme Court reform, The Washington Post's editorial and President Biden's op-ed have sparked a debate over the implementation of term limits and the establishment of an ethics code for justices. While the Post supports the idea of limiting justices' terms to 18 years, critics argue that this proposal could make the court more politically influenced rather than less.

The editorial suggests that term limits aligned with presidential election cycles would bind court seats to the same electoral forces from which justices are supposed to be insulated. It emphasizes that the court's purpose is to measure policies against the enduring principles of the law and the Constitution, asserting that the court should not strive to be popular but rather maintain its independence.

The editorial also raises concerns that term limits could lead to more frequent and contentious nomination proceedings, as political assaults on nominees may still occur due to specific ideological concerns. It argues that term limits may not necessarily reduce the stakes of Supreme Court nominations as hoped, and could instead create a system that is more vulnerable to partisan influence.

While President Biden's proposed Supreme Court reform includes a call for disclosure of gifts, critics argue that a complete ban on justices receiving gifts should be enacted. They draw a parallel to the pharmaceutical industry, where laws banning gifts to physicians helped eliminate corruption and fostered transparency. They believe that requiring mere disclosure is insufficient to deter potential corruption or undue influence.

The debate surrounding term limits and ethics codes in Supreme Court reform extends beyond political lines, with intellectuals on both the left and right considering these proposals. However, historical attempts to implement term limits for justices have consistently failed, highlighting the challenges of amending the Constitution in this regard.

In addition to term limits, one suggestion proposes a minimum age requirement of 55 years. Advocates argue that this would emphasize the importance of experience and maturity, potentially discouraging justices from using the position as future leverage.

Another alternative presented is a requirement that presidential appointments of Supreme Court justices be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. Proponents believe this would reduce the partisanship associated with Supreme Court appointments and bring the court closer to the people.

While President Biden's proposals for term limits and an ethics code are seen as practical reforms, the idea of holding a president accountable for criminal actions committed while in office through a constitutional amendment is deemed unfeasible due to the current hyperpartisanship in the nation. Scholars argue that the Supreme Court's approach to distinguishing between official and unofficial presidential acts in criminal cases further complicates the issue.

The public's trust in the Supreme Court is a concern highlighted by President Biden's op-ed, and one possible solution is endorsing the Keep Nine Amendment. This amendment, supported by a majority of Americans and over 150 members of Congress, aims to prevent court-packing and maintain the court's current composition of nine justices.

As the debate over Supreme Court reform continues, it remains to be seen how these proposed changes will be received and whether they will result in meaningful reform ensuring the court's independence and public trust.