The Washington Post has a new high-profile staff writer. Well, it did for a day anyway.

President Joe Biden wrote an opinion piece for the Post on Monday: “My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law.”

In it, Biden called for major changes to the court, including term limits and a code of ethics policy. The op-ed comes in the wake of the court’s recent decision to grant presidents broad immunity for actions they take while in office.

“The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office,” Biden wrote.

Biden would later write, “What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.”

The boldest of Biden’s suggestions is term limits for Supreme Court justices. Under Biden’s proposal, a sitting president would name a new justice every two years and that justice would serve 18 years. Biden’s other two proposals are no immunity for crimes a president commits in office and a binding code of ethics, which would include justices recusing themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest.

Biden wrote, “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. In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.”

Biden followed up his piece in the Post with a 25-minute speech in Austin, Texas, where he again criticized the court’s decision to grant immunity to presidents from prosecution for what they do while in office. Biden said, “For all practical purposes, the court’s decision almost certainly means that the president can violate the oath, flout our laws and face no consequences. Folks, just imagine what a president could do trampling civil rights and liberties, given such immunity.”

What Biden is suggesting is really quite remarkable when you think of it: a total rehaul of one of the most powerful institutions in our nation.

So could this actually happen? In a post on X, House Speaker Mike Johnson slammed the idea, saying it would “tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people’s faith in our system of justice.”

He added, “This dangerous gambit of the Biden-Harris Administration is dead on arrival in the House.”

Trump also criticized Biden and the Democrats on social media.

A statement from the campaign for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris said, “These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the court, strengthen our democracy and ensure no one is above the law.”

Interesting that Biden chose The Washington Post to make his unprecedented case for Supreme Court reforms.

Speaking of which, Washington Post reporter Amber Phillips wrote why Biden’s proposal would be so hard to get done, writing, “Republicans like the court as it is, and Republicans get a say in any reform packages. Six of the court’s nine members lean conservative, and these justices have been willing to make some bold decisions that push the country in a more conservative direction. So even if Democrats win control of Congress and the White House next year, Republicans in the Senate could still filibuster any changes.”

Not a fan of ding dongs

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy appeared on Fox News on Monday and repeatedly attacked Kamala Harris, criticizing her laugh and saying that a lot of Americans think of her as a “ding dong.” While it might have scored some points among conservative viewers, it raised some questions from Fox News host Neil Cavuto.

In a well-reasoned pushback, Cavuto said to Kennedy, “I’m wondering if the strategy to focus on her laugh, or the former president calling her nasty and crazy, really promotes that push to show she’s not up to the job. Does it look petty? Does it say to judge her on this level looks like a strategy that could backfire on Republicans? By all means, get her on the issues … but to focus on this other stuff just looks dumb.”

Cavuto kept at it, asking if it was a smart strategy to focus on name-calling. The pushback seemed to rattle Kennedy, who then turned on Cavuto, saying things such as, “I’m sorry if that offends you, Neil” and, “I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings.”

Cavuto then said, “Senator, you keep bringing it back to my feelings. My feelings matter little.”

Then Cavuto said, “If you think you can gain this November calling people names, I don’t know how far that goes — left or right.”

Kennedy again went after Cavuto’s “feelings,” and said he was just being objective, to which Cavuto said, “Are you really being objective, senator? I just think you’ve got a bash-athon of name-calling at her. If you call that being objective, I don’t know.”

Then the interview ended with both men passively aggressively saying that they hoped the other would “have a better day.”

Here are some of the clips. But good work by Cavuto.

Speaking of Fox News …

Donald Trump went off on his Truth Social, criticizing Fox News for … well, just go ahead and read what Trump wrote:

“Why is FoxNews putting on Crazy Kamala Harris Rallies? Why do they allow the perverts at the failed and disgraced Lincoln Project to advertise on FoxNews? Even Mr. Kellyanne Conway, a man so badly hurt and humiliated by his wife (she must have done some really NASTY things to him, because he is CRAZY!), is advertising on FoxNews. We have to WIN WITHOUT FOX!”

More name-calling

Meanwhile, Democrats have settled on a particular word to go after former President Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance: weird.

It seems to have started with Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz using the word, saying on X, “I’m telling you. These guys are weird,” and sharing a clip of an interview he did with MSNBC, saying the Republicans had “weird ideas” and, “These guys are just weird.”

Others have joined in using the word “weird,” including Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

But CNN’s John Berman asked a good question on Monday: “If you’re the Trump campaign, would you rather be weird than an existential threat to democracy? Is ‘weird’ something that sticks, leaves a mark?”

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher has more.

The Reid Out

MSNBC’s Joy Reid, speaking about Project 2025 on her show Monday night. (Courtesy: MSNBC)

MSNBC’s Joy Reid dedicated the entire hour of her show on Monday night to talking about Project 2025 — what it is, what the impacts could be and what it means for the 2024 election.

She opened by saying, “Tonight, we are laying out the dangers of Project 2025, the manifesto that would give (Trump) authoritarian power, limit your rights and force you and your family to change the way you live your life.”

Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025. At a rally on July 20, Trump said, “They are extreme, seriously extreme. I don’t know anything about it. I don’t want to know anything about it.”

However, Reid said Monday night, “Roughly 140 individuals who worked in Trump’s administration are affiliated with Project 2025, including six former Cabinet Secretaries and four people who were nominated as ambassadors by Trump. The others were either key figures from his first transition, close Oval Office allies, or mid-level agency officials … Trump, Vance, future staffers, future administration officials, and all of his former employees, support parts or all of Project 2025. Do we really think that they would not implement these ideas if given the chance?”

Media tidbits

• Semafor’s Max Tani with “A more media-friendly Kamala Harris runs for president.”
• The New York Times’ Kate Conger with “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Elon?”
• Rolling Stone’s Tessa Stuart talks to the CNN reporter in “Clarissa Ward On The Incredible Challenge of Reporting On Gaza.”
• Donald Trump was interviewed on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show on Monday night.
• The Hill’s Nick Robertson with “Fox News host challenges JD Vance on ‘childless cat lady’ remarks.”
• Reuters with “Murdoch papers agree to search for evidence in Harry, others’ phone-hacking cases.”
• The New York Times’ Stephen Castle with “Former Top BBC Anchor Charged with Making Indecent Images of Children.”
• CNN’s Liam Reilly with “Olympics commentator dropped over sexist comments about women’s swim team.”

Hot type

• For the Los Angeles Times, Julie Seabaugh with “Groundlings alumni look back at 50 years of laugh-out-loud history in sketch comedy.”
• A few days old, but still worth the read. Wall Street Journal sports columnist Jason Gay with “Can the Olympics Save the Summer?”

More resources for journalists

• Lead With Influence is for leaders who manage big responsibilities but have no direct reports.
• Public media journalists: attend our Digital Transformation Project Q&A webinar Aug. 13.
• Teaching, informing, empowering and convening — see our impact.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.