Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(128,958 posts)
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 11:15 AM Apr 2021

UPDATE: Biden unveils commission to study possible expansion of Supreme Court

Source: Washington Post

President Biden created a bipartisan commission Friday to study structural changes to the Supreme Court, giving the group 180 days to produce a report on a range of thorny topics including court expansion and term limits. The commission, composed of 36 legal scholars, former federal judges and practicing lawyers, fulfills Biden’s campaign promise to establish such a group after activists pushed him to back expanding the court after Republicans rushed to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett shortly before last year’s election. Biden has said he is “not a fan” of adding seats to the Supreme Court, but he has declined to say whether he supports any changes to its structure.

The commission, however, is likely to disappoint liberals who are looking for quick action to blunt the court’s conservative majority while giving the president cover to avoid wading into the contentious debate. The members are not tasked with giving Biden specific recommendations, but rather providing an analysis of a range of proposed changes to the court. The executive order establishing the commission mandates that the group hold public meetings and take input from a range of stakeholders, with the report expected in October.

“The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the court’s role in the constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court; and the court’s case selection, rules, and practice,” the White House said in a statement Friday. The announcement comes on the heels of Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s remarks against court expansion this week, warning that it could make the court more political and undermine trust in the institution.

“Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust,” he said in a speech at Harvard Law School on Tuesday. Most of the commission’s members are academics, and they come from a range of political backgrounds and philosophies. Bob Bauer, a top lawyer on Biden’s campaign, and Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School, will chair the commission, which will be run out of the White House Counsel’s Office.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-to-unveil-commission-to-study-possible-expansion-of-supreme-court/2021/04/09/f644552c-9944-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819_story.html



Original NYT article (latest info updated with WaPo) - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-packing.html

Biden Creating Commission to Study Expanding the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- President Biden on Friday will order a 180-day study of adding seats to the Supreme Court, making good on a campaign-year promise to establish a bipartisan commission to examine the potentially explosive subjects of expanding the court or setting term limits for justices, White House officials said. The president acted under pressure from activists pushing for more seats to alter the ideological balance of the court after President Donald J. Trump appointed three justices, including one to a seat that Republicans had blocked his predecessor, Barack Obama, from filling for almost a year.

The result is a court with a conservative 6-3 tilt after the addition of Mr. Trump's choices, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg just days before last year's presidential election. But while Mr. Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asserted that the system of judicial nominations is "getting out of whack," he has declined to say whether he supports altering the size of the court or making other changes -- like imposing term limits -- to the current system of lifetime appointments. It is not clear that the commission being established by Mr. Biden will by itself clarify his position. Under the White House order establishing it, the commission is not set to issue specific recommendations at the end of its study -- an outcome likely to disappoint activists.

In his executive order on Friday, the president will create a 36-member commission charged with examining the history of the court, past changes to the process of nominating justices, and the potential consequences to altering the size of the nation's highest court. The panel will be led by Bob Bauer, who served as White House counsel for former President Barack Obama, and Cristina Rodriguez, a Yale Law School professor who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel under Mr. Obama.

Progressives say that Republicans unfairly gained an advantage on the court by blocking Mr. Obama's nomination of Merrick B. Garland in 2016, and they see adding seats to the court, setting term limits or instituting other changes as a way to offset the power of any one president to influence its makeup. Conservatives have decried the effort as "court-packing" similar to the failed effort by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
UPDATE: Biden unveils commission to study possible expansion of Supreme Court (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Apr 2021 OP
Great news indeed! I do hope this moves along swiftly and yet in 2021, we add all 3. machoneman Apr 2021 #1
Can Manchin stop that too? GPV Apr 2021 #2
This is just creating a Commission to "study" the issue BumRushDaShow Apr 2021 #5
Why yes, he can. Of course he can. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 2021 #6
He can't stop the commissions report Calista241 Apr 2021 #11
Create an Elected Ultimate Court MarcA Apr 2021 #3
Elected federal courts are a bad idea at least until voting rights are fixed (HB1 SB1) PSPS Apr 2021 #9
Judges and Justices shouldn't be subject to the vote and polls. Calista241 Apr 2021 #13
No. The constitution does not give Congress the power to do that FBaggins Apr 2021 #17
Not Quite GB_RN Apr 2021 #18
Almost entirely untrue FBaggins Apr 2021 #21
Perhaps A Bit Of GB_RN Apr 2021 #29
Oh that'll get the rightwing in a lather C_U_L8R Apr 2021 #4
Send them some soap Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2021 #7
Why shouldn't the Supreme Court be the same number Deminpenn Apr 2021 #8
The President will listen to their advice, recommendations. It doesn't mean he will act on what Mr. Sparkle Apr 2021 #10
I doubt he would have any unilateral authority anyway BumRushDaShow Apr 2021 #14
Oh yeah? You want politics? Look at the snuffing of nominations by the Senate Majority Leader bucolic_frolic Apr 2021 #12
necessary imo barbtries Apr 2021 #15
SC expansion, Reparations biil, 2 trillion infrastructure bill....Joe is killing the R's and burying machoneman Apr 2021 #16
Thirteen justices + term limits!! NurseJackie Apr 2021 #19
I'd rather have age limits than term limits... VarryOn Apr 2021 #22
I value a lifetime's experience over youth and on-the-job training. NurseJackie Apr 2021 #23
I do too if the mental faculties and stamina are there... VarryOn Apr 2021 #24
+1 K&R onetexan Apr 2021 #26
Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment Polybius Apr 2021 #30
Yes! If nothing else, it will scare the Bejeezus out of McConnell and conservative Supreme Court Martin68 Apr 2021 #20
Well, I like it. EndlessWire Apr 2021 #25
I like it too!! Well said, endlesswire. Not even his 100 days yet & MoJo has achieved quite a bit. onetexan Apr 2021 #27
Term limits are impossible Polybius Apr 2021 #32
Does it sy inthe constitution how many justices on SCOTUS? onetexan Apr 2021 #33
No Polybius Apr 2021 #34
that's not what the Constitution says. Read here onetexan Apr 2021 #36
Yeah they're wrong in that link and filled with wishful thinking Polybius Apr 2021 #37
Schumer was asked about expanding the court a few months ago BigmanPigman Apr 2021 #28
This is going to take 60 votes when we don't even have 50 Yes votes Polybius Apr 2021 #31
The Commission's report is not due until October BumRushDaShow Apr 2021 #35

machoneman

(4,007 posts)
1. Great news indeed! I do hope this moves along swiftly and yet in 2021, we add all 3.
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 11:43 AM
Apr 2021

Wow, this will blow the heads of a lot of Republiscums for sure. And if we nail the filibuster as well, it will be the death of the Republiscum party for decades if not forever.

BumRushDaShow

(128,958 posts)
5. This is just creating a Commission to "study" the issue
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 12:36 PM
Apr 2021

Something like that could go on for some time before a report is compiled and presented. From the OP article -

People familiar with Mr. Biden’s selections for the commission said they expected some members to offer evidence promoting the benefits of making changes to the court, while others would emphasize the costs or consequences of altering the current method of selecting justices. Those discussions will be presented in the report, which is set to be finished in October.

In his order, Mr. Biden instructed the commission to hold public hearings on the issue and to accept testimony and submissions from other legal experts, organizations and members of the public who want to weigh in.

Among the questions that he wants answered: How should the strengths and weaknesses of proposals to expand the court be evaluated? Would expansion require other reforms, such as the creation of a panel system for sittings? How does the history of efforts to expand or contract the size of the court bear on the questions being debated?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-packing.html

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
11. He can't stop the commissions report
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 02:24 PM
Apr 2021

But if Manchin doesn't support filibuster reform, there's nothing anyone can do about expanding the Supreme Court.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
13. Judges and Justices shouldn't be subject to the vote and polls.
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 02:28 PM
Apr 2021

The last thing I want is a corporation writing a check to support an election of a certain judge. That's how you end up with private prison CEO's supporting some judges and not supporting others. Or power companies supporting judges that rule a certain way.

That way lies peril.

FBaggins

(26,735 posts)
17. No. The constitution does not give Congress the power to do that
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 03:32 PM
Apr 2021

Congress can only create courts inferior to the Supreme Court... and vests the President with sole authority to nominate justices.

GB_RN

(2,355 posts)
18. Not Quite
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 03:36 PM
Apr 2021

The Constitution sets out what is in the SCOTUS’ original jurisdiction. Outside of that, it also says that Congress can limit what the SCOTUS can and can’t have jurisdiction over and can create any other courts it wishes. If Congress wants to create a court with the power to hear all constitutional matters, and strip that power from the SCOTUS, it is within the constitutional authority of Congress to do so.

FBaggins

(26,735 posts)
21. Almost entirely untrue
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 05:56 PM
Apr 2021

First - the constitution vests in SCOTUS "judicial power of the united states" and that Congress can create inferior courts (not "any courts it wishes" ). The post I replied to implies a court above SCOTUS. That clearly is not within Congress' ability.

Second - Yes, Congress has some ability to restrict the courts' jurisdiction, but not in the way you're describing. They have original jurisdiction in certain matters (far more than you appear to assume since states are parties to large proportions of constitutionally significate cases), but they have appellate jurisdiction to the rest. Congress has the ability to restrict that, but not to the extent of giving "all constitutional matters" to a different court. Such a scheme would never be passed... but if it were... SCOTUS would surely find it unconstitutional on the grounds that it vested the judicial power of the country in a court that was not inferior to them.

GB_RN

(2,355 posts)
29. Perhaps A Bit Of
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 07:24 PM
Apr 2021

Bad wording on my part with “any court it wishes”.

“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

This is Article III (emphasis added). Congress does have the power, within its rights to create courts, the ability to strip SCOTUS of any other ability outside of those listed for it to hear, and assign those cases to any such courts that Congress sees fit to create. I’m not making this up, nor am trying to deliberately be argumentative. I’m simply presenting the information as it’s been published (and as I understand it) on Electoral-vote.com, and those guys have lawyers who fact check them from time to time. If I’m missing something - not outside of the realm of possibility - please let me know.

Deminpenn

(15,286 posts)
8. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court be the same number
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 01:10 PM
Apr 2021

as the federal appeals courts, 13? Then there is 1 SCOTUS justice for each circuit. The only justice who would have more than 1 circuit would be the Chief Justice who would have the the national circuit along with a regular one.

There is also a need for more judges due to the increasing workload. Case workload is an issue that's regularly brought up by the Chief Justices.

Mr. Sparkle

(2,932 posts)
10. The President will listen to their advice, recommendations. It doesn't mean he will act on what
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 02:04 PM
Apr 2021

they say or even go a lot further, then what they conclude.

BumRushDaShow

(128,958 posts)
14. I doubt he would have any unilateral authority anyway
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 02:28 PM
Apr 2021

but this at least provides a mechanism to discuss it and this group probably should look at what happened under the FDR administration when the same subject was broached (although for slightly different reasons).

https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court

bucolic_frolic

(43,158 posts)
12. Oh yeah? You want politics? Look at the snuffing of nominations by the Senate Majority Leader
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 02:26 PM
Apr 2021

Because that's an influence on the makeup of the Court too.

machoneman

(4,007 posts)
16. SC expansion, Reparations biil, 2 trillion infrastructure bill....Joe is killing the R's and burying
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 03:30 PM
Apr 2021

Last edited Fri Apr 9, 2021, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

them early on in his term. Love it as its making R's head spin worse than the girl's in The Exorcist!

Hannity's head will blow and other Foxers heads are so rage-filled they will stroke out.

Good going Joe! Keep up the pressure.

 

VarryOn

(2,343 posts)
22. I'd rather have age limits than term limits...
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 06:28 PM
Apr 2021

Set the max age at 70 or 75. Then, nominate younger to maximize the length of service.

 

VarryOn

(2,343 posts)
24. I do too if the mental faculties and stamina are there...
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 06:49 PM
Apr 2021

But if we're going down a path of placing some type of limits--and maybe we won't--I'd rather have a 45 year old on the court for 30 years than a 62 year old with a 15 year term.

It's unfortunate this has become necessary.

Martin68

(22,800 posts)
20. Yes! If nothing else, it will scare the Bejeezus out of McConnell and conservative Supreme Court
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 04:18 PM
Apr 2021

Justices.

EndlessWire

(6,526 posts)
25. Well, I like it.
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 06:59 PM
Apr 2021

I am really liking the amount of work that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are doing on behalf of the country. They are busy safeguarding Democracy.

While Repubs are busy out there defending their atrocious sexual desires, our PRESIDENT and FL are in the fight. I don't pretend to have any expertise on the SC at all, just the average knowledge that every citizen should have. I think Biden has started it off well. If you don't know something, you investigate. In this case, he has summoned those who can bring him answers. I bet that he has a learned opinion of his own already, but he is being thorough. I sure appreciate that.

I remember that The One Who Shouldn't Be Mentioned started his term off with unbelievable swiftness in making changes. In one year, he swept through our institutions like a tornado, wreaking havoc while still playing golf on the weekend. He only slowed down a bit after he gifted the rich corporations with tax cuts.

So, after all that crap about Biden being feeble, it is heartening to see that he is steadily taking back our country. Down with fascism!

Joe will not be perfect. He will do something that I/We don't like. But, he is a breath of fresh air. I like what I see. And, whatever he does, it will probably be the right thing. That's what we pay him for, and that's what WE elected him to do.

Keep on trucking, Joe and Kamala!

onetexan

(13,041 posts)
27. I like it too!! Well said, endlesswire. Not even his 100 days yet & MoJo has achieved quite a bit.
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 07:17 PM
Apr 2021

Hope it's 13 judges (4 more Dems appointees) + term limits, as NurseJackie mentioned.

Polybius

(15,407 posts)
34. No
Sat Apr 10, 2021, 02:05 AM
Apr 2021

We can put 11, 13, or even 99 on with a simple majority vote. But the Constitution says that they’re there for life.

onetexan

(13,041 posts)
36. that's not what the Constitution says. Read here
Sat Apr 10, 2021, 06:50 AM
Apr 2021
https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/

"Concerned with constitutionality? Read below:
First, the Constitution does not expressly grant “life tenure” to Supreme Court justices. Rather, this idea has been derived from the language that judges and justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour.”

Our proposal does not contravene this requirements as it would keep justices on the federal bench as senior justices after serving 18 years on SCOTUS. Senior justices could sit on lower federal courts, as many retired justices have done, or fill in if there’s an unexpected vacancy.

Some may still feel that pushing justices into senior status would be too similar to forcing them into retirement. But “senior status” in the judiciary is a congressional creation, and one that has been almost universally accepted as a constitutionally valid interpretation of Article III.

We do take seriously the charge that this could be seen as a diminution of the position, and so our proposal would not impact current justices – that is, only future justices would be subject to this new regulation on service."

Polybius

(15,407 posts)
37. Yeah they're wrong in that link and filled with wishful thinking
Sat Apr 10, 2021, 11:54 AM
Apr 2021

“Shall hold their offices during good behavior” does mean lifetime appointments. If Congress tried to pass a law that says otherwise, take a wild guess who has the final say? Yeah 9-0 ruling overturning it.

BigmanPigman

(51,590 posts)
28. Schumer was asked about expanding the court a few months ago
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 07:19 PM
Apr 2021

on Rachel Maddow. He said there is a special committee or something and the Dems will take it up after they complete their assessment.

Polybius

(15,407 posts)
31. This is going to take 60 votes when we don't even have 50 Yes votes
Fri Apr 9, 2021, 10:41 PM
Apr 2021

Gonna have to wait till at least after the 2022 elections.

BumRushDaShow

(128,958 posts)
35. The Commission's report is not due until October
Sat Apr 10, 2021, 06:32 AM
Apr 2021

so any action on it won't be happening any time soon. I expect it would then pivot to having Congressional hearings on the topic at some point. So the subject itself can definitely be strung out.

I think the point was to at least put "actions" to "words", provide a venue for research and debate on the concept, and establish how one might carry out such a change in a practical way, including presenting the pros and cons and (as I believe the articles have noted) the risks/benefits... not unlike what has been proposed about handling the idea of Reparations.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»UPDATE: Biden unveils com...