Democrats ignored Supreme Court reform at convention — and leading advocates in Congress don’t mind

CHICAGO (CN) — It was an issues-focused week at the Democratic National Convention, with Democrats campaigning hard on promises to protect abortion access, clamp down on gun violence and grow the middle class.

But one issue, despite a recent push from the Joe Biden administration, remained largely absent from the prepared remarks of the politicians, celebrities and party advocates who took the main stage in Chicago: Supreme Court reform.

It was an unusual omission for Democrats, many of whom in recent months have railed on ethical malfeasance and what they see as the political capture of the high court. And it was especially odd given that the White House just last month formally called on lawmakers to pursue a swath of Supreme Court reform, including implementing term limits for justices and mandating an enforceable code of ethical conduct.

But, despite the dearth of Supreme Court chat from the DNC’s main stage, some of Congress’ loudest voices on the issue said Thursday that the Democrats had to prioritize elevating Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the party’s presidential ticket — and that winning the election would all but guarantee progress on court reform.

“I’m totally cool with it not having been brought up,” said Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

Whitehouse, who has been an ardent critic of a Supreme Court which he views as captured by right-wing special interests and who has proposed a raft of legislation aimed at restoring public confidence in the high court, nonetheless said that the DNC’s focus should be squarely on Harris and Walz.

“This is a values convention,” the lawmaker said during a panel discussion held by the Brennan Center for Justice. “This is a life stories convention. This is a who we are convention.”

Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, who spoke on Thursday’s panel and gave his own remarks on the DNC stage this week, noted that the first draft of his speech had been around 5,000 words — many about the Supreme Court — but he had to cut most of it to fit within time constraints.

But that was fine, Raskin said.

“The focus, of course, has to be on what we’re doing here, which is electing Kamala Harris as president of the United States,” he pointed out.

The Maryland Democrat also observed that many of the issues Democrats chose to address at the convention, such as reproductive rights, birth control and in vitro fertilization, are topics that implicitly involve the Supreme Court. Democrats could be better about drawing that connection for voters, Raskin acknowledged, but contended the party was still talking about “the right things.”

Neither Raskin nor Whitehouse, though, were trying to play down the importance of reforming the court, they said.

“I don’t want anybody taxing the Democrats with not understanding the threat that the Supreme Court poses to civil freedom and democracy in America,” said Raskin.

Whitehouse, though himself a longtime advocate for court reform, ceded that Democrats have been slow to get in gear on the issue.

“I don’t want to escape the blame that we have for not having caught this sooner,” he said.

But a focus on Harris, Walz and a November election victory would only mean good things for Supreme Court reform advocates, the Rhode Island senator said. If Democrats can capture a governing trifecta — House, Senate and the White House — it will supercharge legislative efforts in Congress that have been stymied by Republican opposition, he argued.

Whitehouse forecast a bill that would package together several issues, including reproductive rights, voting rights and court reform, and said that with a controlling majority in government Democrats could sidestep a Republican filibuster on such legislation.

“If you got a bill like that moving, it’s going to have spectacular tailwinds behind it,” he said. “I think it will be highly motivating and positive.”

Whitehouse predicted such a bill could make its way through the Capitol “by this time next year.”

Despite the overall lack of discussion about Supreme Court issues at the convention, Thursday’s panel was full of fiery rhetoric about the state of the high court.

Elie Mystal, political commentator and justice correspondent for The Nation, tore into the court’s conservative majority over reports of their relationships with wealthy benefactors such as Federalist Society founder Leonard Leo.

Mystal likened Leo to a “groomer,” repurposing a term often used by right-wingers to problematize childhood education about LGBTQ issues.

“What he does is identify talent, identify people who are willing to do the dirty work of ignoring precedent … and cultivate them, show them the way and get them on the Supreme Court,” said Mystal.

Justice Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of former President Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court picks, were “made in a lab” by the Federalist Society, he remarked.

Leo is one of the central figures in Democrats’ ongoing scrutiny of Supreme Court ethics. The former Federalist Society president reportedly helped facilitate luxury trips and private jet travel for conservative justices, namely Justice Samuel Alito. Leo has also been the subject of a Senate subpoena, though he has long refused to comply.

Brennan Center president Michael Waldman, echoing the sentiments of many reform-minded Democrats, pointed out that efforts to hold the Supreme Court to account are broadly popular. A recent Fox News poll, he noted, found that 78% of respondents across party lines supported term limits for the justices.

“It’s an issue whose time has come, and there’s extraordinary new momentum for it,” Waldman said.

Democrats in Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at clamping down on malfeasance at the high court, but Republican opposition has kept these bills largely in the ether.

Whitehouse has sponsored the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, a measure that would force the high court to adopt an enforceable code of ethical conduct and stand up an independent ethics review board composed of circuit court judges. The bill, though it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a tight margin earlier this year, was blocked on the floor in June by Republicans.

The Rhode Island senator has said Democrats would likely bring the legislation back up for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told Courthouse News before Congress’ August recess that the party was still workshopping a strategy for calling such a vote.

In the House, Georgia Representative Hank Johnson has unveiled a bill that would implement 18-year term limits for the justices. The restrictions would be retroactive — meaning that some of the court’s longer-serving jurists including Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito would need to step down. The measure would also allow presidents to appoint as many as two new justices during their term.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss