Liberal author wants Biden to get rid of Supreme Court because it was influenced by Trump

Liberal author Mark Joseph Stern recently made headlines with a bold proposition for President Joe Biden: dissolve the Supreme Court. In a scathing op-ed, Stern likened the highest court in the land to “Trump’s harem” and called for its abolition in order to restore balance and integrity to the judiciary.

Stern, a vocal critic of the Trump administration, outlined his argument in a searing piece published in a leading liberal publication. He pointed to the perceived politicization of the Supreme Court under former President Donald Trump and argued that drastic measures were needed to rectify the situation.

According to Stern, the Supreme Court had become a symbol of partisan politics, with Trump appointing three conservative justices during his time in office. This, Stern argued, had tilted the ideological balance of the court in favor of conservatives and undermined its credibility as an impartial arbiter of the law.

As a result, Stern proposed a radical solution: dissolve the Supreme Court and start afresh. He argued that this would allow Biden to nominate new justices who would restore balance and integrity to the judiciary, ensuring that the court remained free from political influence and loyal only to the Constitution.

Stern’s proposal has sparked fierce debate across the political spectrum, with conservatives denouncing it as an attack on the rule of law and liberals applauding it as a necessary step to undo the damage of the Trump era. Critics have accused Stern of advocating for an authoritarian power grab, while supporters have lauded him for his courage in speaking truth to power.

Regardless of where one stands on Stern’s proposal, one thing is clear: the issue of Supreme Court reform is front and center in the ongoing national conversation. With the court’s conservative majority poised to potentially reshape American jurisprudence for decades to come, the stakes could not be higher.

As Biden weighs his options for addressing the perceived imbalance on the Supreme Court, Stern’s radical proposal will undoubtedly loom large in the debate. Whether it is ultimately acted upon remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the future of the highest court in the land hangs in the balance.

For now, Stern’s call to ‘dissolve’ the Supreme Court will continue to reverberate throughout the halls of power in Washington, sparking heated discussions and raising important questions about the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. Only time will tell what the future holds for the highest court in the land, but one thing is certain: change is on the horizon.