President Biden’s Supreme Court “reforms” are nothing but an attempted left-wing takeover of the high court, warns Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt.

“All you need to know about their strategy here is, their attempt to undermine the Supreme Court is their effort to pack the court,” Schmitt says in an exclusive interview with The Heartlander Thursday.

“They want to undermine it so they can pack the Supreme Court. This is all about exerting power and control. It’s patently unconstitutional. Joe Biden knows this. It’s particularly shameful, because he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the United States Senate. 

“But they don’t like a couple of court decisions, and so they’re willing to blow the whole thing up now –  violate separation of powers, further try to discredit the Supreme Court – all for their political ambitions of power and control. And it’s shameful.”

Biden has proposed three steps he calls reforms:

• a constitutional amendment to “make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.”
• term limits for Supreme Court justices
• a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices

Considering the judicial branch is a separate, co-equal branch of government that the other two branches have little control over, it’s indeed doubtful the Executive Branch could impose rules of conduct on Supreme Court justice.

It’s also unlikely a constitutional amendment of that kind could be approved by three-quarters of the states.

Is this really a rogue court?

Moreover, it must be asked: Is the Supreme Court as rogue as the Biden administration likes to portray? While Biden maintains he has “great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers,” in the same breath he alleges “what is happening now is not normal.”

Yet, the court’s ruling on presidential immunity, which Biden is railing against in pushing his “reforms,” merely said the president is immune for official acts. The ruling flatly did not provide “immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office,” as Biden claims his constitutional amendment is needed to prevent.

And oddly enough, however, Biden actually won in the high court’s other landmark case, Murthy v. Missouri. In that case, the Supreme Court swept aside a lawsuit seeking to end the Biden administration’s censorship of conservatives online.

Schmitt knows something of that case, having filed it as Missouri attorney general.

“What’s interesting is, when conservatives don’t get their way in the court you don’t see conservatives talking about adding five justices to the court,” Schmitt argues. “You know, there’s a process for this. The president appoints, the Senate confirms. It’s been the way of the world for a very, very long time. 

“So, like I said, they want to add three or four more justices. And the truth is, there’s no limiting principle to this, because if you end up at 13, well, why not 25? Why not 50? Why not somebody coming back and saying, ‘Well, we need 100?’ You go down this road of being a Banana Republic. 

“I think they’re trying to juice up enthusiasm in advance of the fall [election]. But this is a dangerous game to play.”

On another breaking news story, Schmitt says Americans, especially New York firefighters who bore the brunt of the 9/11 attacks, are absolutely right to be outraged with the Biden administration’s plea deals allowing three of the terror plotters to avoid the death penalty.

FDNY Uniformed Firefighters Association President Andrew Ansbro said in a statement Thursday:

“On behalf of New York City firefighters, especially the survivors of the September 11th terrorist attack who are living with the illnesses and injuries that were inflicted upon us that day, we are disgusted and disappointed that these three terrorists were given a plea deal and allowed to escape the ultimate justice while each month three more heroes from the FDNY are dying from World Trade Center illnesses.”. 

“They absolutely should be [outraged],” Schmitt says. “I mean, it’s a betrayal. We’re supposed to hold these kind of people accountable for one of the worst crimes in American history, and the idea that you go soft on them and enter a plea deal now makes no sense.”

Expect more outrages

Still, it’s not the last outrage Schmitt expects from the lame duck Biden administration on its way out the door.

“Oh, sure. You know they’re going to try to supercharge all these agencies to get done what they want to get done without Congress ever having to vote on it – whether it’s Green New Deal stuff or more spending. 

“Meanwhile, there’s companies trying to build semiconductor factories in Arizona who can’t get the proper permits to move forward because they haven’t hired enough ex-convicts. We have broadband deployment that should be going in places like rural Missouri. But they can’t get funding that’s already been authorized, because they haven’t executed a climate action plan. 

“This is a radical administration that’s going to keep their pedal to the metal until they’re out of office, hopefully on Jan. 20 of next year.”

Along the way, the media, social media and Google have all been caught coddling presumptive Democrat nominee Kamala Harris – and even censoring information and images of President Donald Trump’s attempted assassination.

The man who filed a lawsuit to prevent such censorship is quite aware that it’s actually growing now after the case’s dismissal.

“Yeah, it’s scary times, right? I actually had on my Facebook page that image of President Trump standing up and saying ‘fight, fight, fight’ after the failed assassination attempt. I looked, and Facebook had blocked it. Now they’ve reversed course on that, but the Google searches – this is all part of an election interference scheme by [Big] Tech, and it’s not acceptable. 

“It’s at the heart of what my lawsuit was about, in showing how the government at the time was very much involved with what these social media companies are doing. And these social media companies have legal protections, because they’re supposed to be an open platform. Once they get into this business of what they’re engaging in, and discriminating against conservatives online, they should lose that status as a platform. They should be sued, as any publisher can be sued, as any news organization can be sued. 

“Those are the kind of reforms I’m going to fight for.”