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 Bidens 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 years 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 courts 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 courts 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 courts case selection, rules, and practice, the White House said in a statement Friday. The announcement comes on the heels of Justice Stephen G. Breyers 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 commissions members are academics, and they come from a range of political backgrounds and philosophies. Bob Bauer, a top lawyer on Bidens campaign, and Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School, will chair the commission, which will be run out of the White House Counsels 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
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.
machoneman
(4,007 posts)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.
GPV
(72,377 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,958 posts)Something like that could go on for some time before a report is compiled and presented. From the OP article -
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
Fiendish Thingy
(15,607 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)But if Manchin doesn't support filibuster reform, there's nothing anyone can do about expanding the Supreme Court.
MarcA
(2,195 posts)The Constitution gives Congress the power to do this.
PSPS
(13,595 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)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)Congress can only create courts inferior to the Supreme Court... and vests the President with sole authority to nominate justices.
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 cant 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)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)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. Im not making this up, nor am trying to deliberately be argumentative. Im simply presenting the information as its 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 Im missing something - not outside of the realm of possibility - please let me know.
C_U_L8R
(45,002 posts)Hilarity will ensue.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,972 posts)Deminpenn
(15,286 posts)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)they say or even go a lot further, then what they conclude.
BumRushDaShow
(128,958 posts)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)Because that's an influence on the makeup of the Court too.
barbtries
(28,793 posts)this is good news and they better move fast.
machoneman
(4,007 posts)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.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)VarryOn
(2,343 posts)Set the max age at 70 or 75. Then, nominate younger to maximize the length of service.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)VarryOn
(2,343 posts)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.
onetexan
(13,041 posts)Polybius
(15,407 posts)A tall task.
Martin68
(22,800 posts)Justices.
EndlessWire
(6,526 posts)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)Hope it's 13 judges (4 more Dems appointees) + term limits, as NurseJackie mentioned.
Polybius
(15,407 posts)Requires a Constitutional Amendment.
onetexan
(13,041 posts)We can put 11, 13, or even 99 on with a simple majority vote. But the Constitution says that theyre there for life.
onetexan
(13,041 posts)"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 theres 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)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)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)Gonna have to wait till at least after the 2022 elections.
BumRushDaShow
(128,958 posts)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.