President Biden has moved to end the RICO corruption and obstruction of Jeffrey Epstein's and Russia's GOP SCOTUS majority, proposing to reform the same.
"While Biden did not mention Donald Trump by name, it was clear that he had the former president in mind. It was Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election that led the court to vote 6-3, along ideological lines, to grant him immunity. "No one is above the law," Biden wrote. "Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one."
Biden's op-ed underscores his long-simmering frustration with the court, which has now finally led to him to respond to calls from within his party to take drastic action and hold it accountable. Biden acknowledged in the op-ed that he had "great respect for our institutions," but maintained that "dangerous and extreme decisions" and scandals that have caused the public to "question the court’s fairness and independence," including undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with business before the court, left him with no choice."
""What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms," he wrote. "We now stand in a breach.""
"Biden delved into the contents of his plan to reform the Supreme Court, which was informed by analysis from the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States that he set up earlier in his term. The first proposal is a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment, which would establish that there is no immunity for crimes that a former president has committed while in office. A constitutional amendment, named after what Biden called a "simple yet profound principle" that acted as a bedrock for the nation, would override the Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity if successfully passed."
"The second proposal is a rule that would impose term limits on Supreme Court justices, who currently serve for life or until they choose to retire. Biden wrote that he supports a system in which every two years, the president would appoint a justice that would serve an 18-year term. The Constitution does not expressly grant life tenure to Supreme Court justices, saying only that they “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” Term limits "would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary," he wrote. "It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come.""
"The third proposal calls for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court that would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have conflicts of interest. Biden noted that every other federal justice in the country is bound by an enforceable code of conduct and opined that the Supreme Court should follow suit.
Those suggested rules in the code of conduct appear to respond directly to the scandals that have embroiled the court in recent years. In 2023, a ProPublica report revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose most of the $4 million he received in gifts since 2004, many of them from individuals who had business before the court. Other justices, including Samuel Alito, also accepted undisclosed gifts from such donors. Earlier in 2024, Alito received criticism for pro-insurrectionist flags that were raised outside of his homes in Virginia and New Jersey, then declining to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol."
""We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy," Biden concluded. "In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.""
Prior to President Biden proposing to reign in the RICO corruption and obstruction of Russia's and Jeffrey Epstein's GOP SCOTUS majority, Justice Kagan called for an enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS by the lower courts.
"Kagan on Thursday called criticism of the code of conduct “fair,” and went on to say that she thought the best enforcers of it for the Supreme Court would be lower-court judges, but not the justices themselves.
“I can’t think of other people who should enforce a code of conduct … against judges. And I think it would be quite bad … for us to do it to each other,” she said. “In other words, for the same judges who are sitting around the table trying to decide cases, to be to be the people who are saying, ‘Oh, no, you broke that rule or you didn’t break that rule.’”
Prakash and Smith (2006), in collaboration with Yale Law, Cornell Law, and San Diego Law laid out the legal argument for what Kagan proposed as the legal path to hold SCOTUS accountable for ongoing organized crime serving child sex trafficking rings and enemies of the United States, after being unlawfully-appointed by them.
"Most everyone assumes that impeachment is the only means of removing federal judges and that the Constitution’s grant of good-behavior tenure is an implicit reference to impeachment. This Article challenges that conventional wisdom. Using evidence from England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior.
There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual. Contrary to what many might suppose, judges were not the only ones who could be granted good-behavior tenure.
Anything that might be held—land, licenses, employment, etc.—could be granted during good behavior, and private parties could grant good-behavior tenure to other private individuals. Impeachment, by contrast, referred to a criminal procedure conducted in the legislature that could lead to an array of criminal sanctions. In England and in the colonies, impeachment was never seen as a means of judging whether someone with good-behavior tenure had forfeited her tenure by reason of misbehavior. Whether a landholder, employee, or government officer with good-behavior tenure had misbehaved would be determined in the ordinary courts of law.
Moreover, the vast majority of state constitutions did not equate good-behavior tenure with impeachment either. To the contrary, many distinguished them explicitly. Taken together, these propositions devastate the conventional conflation of good-behavior tenure with impeachment. More importantly, they indicate that the original Constitution did not render impeachment the only possible means of removing federal judges with good-behavior tenure. Given the long tradition of adjudicating misbehavior in the ordinary courts, Congress may enact necessary and proper legislation permitting the removal of federal judges upon a finding of misbehavior in the ordinary courts of law."
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/438_q54sjnwz.pdf
As we have previously reported, all six of the GOP SCOTUS majority were unlawfully appointed post-disqualifying treason and/or elections crimes by those who appointed them, specifically in what amounts to decades of crimes to achieve the same, and where the GOP SCOTUS majority sought to self-legitimize their unconstitutional appointments making them de facto officers versus actual officers of the United States, who are legally usurpers if they engage in bad faith decision making and/or bad behavior, and have since done just that, including all sorts of self-dealing, accepting $4 million to $7 million bribes by those bringing business to their court, but not at all limited to the same, and which allows for both their removal and for the voiding of all of their changes to the government from the beginning.
Furthermore, as previously reported, all six of the GOP SCOTUS usurpers were hand-picked by the Federalist Society, which was financed by none other than Vladimir Putin's, Russia's, the GRU's, Felix Sater's, Paul Manafort's, Steve Bannon's, Roger Stone's, and Donald Trump's 2016 disqualifying treason and elections crimes coconspirator -- Jeffrey Epstein's UK royals' SCL Group's Cambridge Analytica's Mercer family -- and also financed by Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate, clients, financiers, and/or orbit, specifically by Jeffrey Epstein's Sergey Brin's and Jeffrey Epstein's Larry Page's Google, Jeffrey Epstein's David Rockefeller's Standard Oil's Chevron, and Jeffrey Epstein's David Koch, in the context this same GOP SCOTUS majority of usurpers blocked justice for Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate's victims.
Not surprisingly, Donald Trump was named as a key client, financiers, and/or associate of child rapist and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and in fact Katie Johnson sued Donald Trump for gang raping her and/or Marie Doe (likely Maria Farmer) with Jeffrey Epstein, when she was 13 years old and Maria was 12. The gang rape included sodomizing Katie Johnson, and Trump beat her up, and threatened to kill her family if she told anyone, and as she laid on the floor crying after her rape, Trump threw money at her and told her to "get a fucking abortion", per the lawsuit.
https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Johnson_TrumpEpstein_Calif_Lawsuit.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154484/katie-johnson-v-donald-j-trump/
Not surprisingly, RFK Jr.'s family, the Trump family, and the UK/EU royals of Cambridge Analytica's SCL Group were the largest families named in the child sex trafficker's contact book, in the context that Jeffrey Epstein's RFK Jr. ran against Jeffrey Epstein's Trump this year, and where the running mate of Jeffrey Epstein's RFK Jr. was Jeffrey Epstein's Sergey Brin's ex-wife, and where the running mate of Jeffrey Epstein's Trump has been business associates with Jeffrey Epstein's Peter Thiel, and where Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk was allegedly going to finance Jeffrey Epstein's Trump's campaign $40 million per month, in the context Jeffrey Epstein's Musk is business associates with Jeffrey Epstein's Trump's business associates, specifically 9/11's and Jeffrey Epstein's Saudis, who are separately business associates with Jeffrey Epstein's Ivanka Trump's husband, who furthered Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate's and Russia's treason and elections fraud crimes at the Mayflower Hotel April 27, 2016 and/or at the infamous Trump Tower meeting June 9, 2016, when Kushner, the Trump family, the GOP, and Russia's sanctions lawyer also conspired how to traffic children from Russia to Jeffrey Epstein's Trump-Kushner family under the guise of "adoptions", whereafter the ICC issued a war crimes arrest warrant for Putin for trafficking children from Ukraine to Russia, presumably to traffic them to the Trump and Kushners is a reasonable inference.
Res ipsa loquitur malum in se, this natural evil speaks for itself.
Accordingly, as it is the President who determines who may or may not be what of officer, President Biden has specified that SCOTUS judges, de factor officers, and/or usurpers of SCOTUS shall not be above the law, and SCOTUS Justice Kagan has specified that the lower courts would be able to enforce the same, and Prakash and Smith have laid out the legal arguments for a path beyond impeachment, by which corrupt, obstructing, bribe-taking, and illegitimate SCOTUS usurpers like Russia's and Jeffrey Epstein's GOP SCOTUS majority can be readily removed, in alignment with SCOTUS Justice Kagan's proposal, confirm that the removal of SCOTUS for bad behavior in a lower court is a valid legal pathway to remove these usurpers attacking and corrupting the Constitution.
Separately, UPR News has elucidated at least 20 different additional laws to disqualify Trump, Aileen Cannon, and Russia's and Jeffrey Epstein's illegitimate GOP SCOTUS usurpers from office, and so there is more than one legal path to do this in a lower court, regardless if Russia's and Jeffrey Epstein's GOP, GOP SCOTUS, Aileen Cannon, Trump, and/or others resist the same.