General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: 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. Trumps choices, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg just days before last years 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 nations 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. Obamas 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.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-packing.html
BeyondGeography
(39,346 posts)about his actual enthusiasm for this.
edhopper
(33,479 posts)not Friday morning.
But because of Dems Manchin and Simena, this is a non starter.
OldCicero
(43 posts)To return to Delaware most weekends.
Probably moves up the dump time.
BeyondGeography
(39,346 posts)Which was not only wise and good politics but faithful to his actual views. I doubt those have changed a bit.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)but its the start of a long process to address the GOP-packed judiciary.
And, the burying a story by dumping-news-on-a-friday notion is outdated. For political stories, Friday can be the ideal day in which to announce news. Why? Sunday political talk shows set the agenda for news in the following days. Releasing the news on Friday gives the President the benefit of a weekday news cycle AND Sunday talk shows.
And, perhaps even a bigger factor, the news follows on Breyers opinion about expanding the court. This places a huge spotlight on the judiciary, and the commission is Bidens first formal volley. He is mobilizing the executive branch around the issue.
BeyondGeography
(39,346 posts)Cynics might even be excused for thinking the two events were coordinated. Wingnuts cant quite say the all the sore loser commies are set on destroying the republic now, can they?
Politicub
(12,165 posts)This isnt the craven Trump administration.
Joe doesnt showboat.
MiHale
(9,664 posts)They are the pros.
Bluethroughu
(5,141 posts)It's time once again, to grab it back from the Oligarchs.
CrispyQ
(36,421 posts)Actually, I think he's already stated that.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,548 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)and holding swing seats like NH, GA and NV
usaf-vet
(6,161 posts)... for Democrats. Notably, the State Superintendent Of Schools went to a Democratic
https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/map-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-2021-state-superintendent-election-results/
https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/map-2021-spring-primary-election-results/
https://projects.jsonline.com/topics/election/2021/4/6/wisconsin-spring-election-results.html
Moving toward purple IMO?
usaf-vet
(6,161 posts)Botany
(70,447 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 9, 2021, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)
... what they will do and one of these days
Joe will walk right over you. Are you ready Joe?
Start Walking.
Go Joe. He is not fucking around.
dalton99a
(81,392 posts)WA-03 Democrat
(3,037 posts)When I look to my right and think I see a couple of our senators sitting in that section.
Biden is doing what he said he would do which is a study. If it makes sense, to help Americans, I am sure President Biden will do it.
I do not miss the days of waking up and reading QOP mobster bullshit du jour.
Biden is my Prozac!
2naSalit
(86,323 posts)That Joe is the right person in the right place for the time, just Like Speaker Pelosi is in the right place when we need a master of political function in place.
wnylib
(21,340 posts)only 2 years away from that.
What up and coming Dems are of similar caliber - experienced, knowlegeable, and able to get things done?
ON EDIT: Madam VP is obviously one, and Stacey Abrams. Who else?
2naSalit
(86,323 posts)I am looking forward to seeing who they are in the next year or two. The days of all leaders being elderly is soon coming to an end.
CaptainTruth
(6,576 posts)She's been criticizing DeSantis like she wants his job (& I hope she gets it!) & not long ago Kamala came to FL & met with her, photo-op etc., which tells me the administration & the party at the national level recognizes her potential.
wnylib
(21,340 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,559 posts)The SCOTUS majority is the absolute bedrock of GOP Grand Strategy and they will not give it up without figurative blood being shed.
bucolic_frolic
(43,044 posts)The Court has more to rule on. I find their slow pace and paltry output ridiculous. Hope they probe the slow pace of lower courts as well. And why did 45 get fast-track paths to SCOTUS, while those suing him stood in line like everyone else?
They should increase the Court's capacity for workload. And should try to find the wisdom of age without senility, and rule of law without partisanship. But my next 2 cents is there should be a minimum age, as well as a retirement age, but then I'm someone who doesn't find much wisdom, balance, or experience in 35 year olds. A judge needs the observations of decades to understand the shifts of time.
Yeah, I know. Delusions are my specialty.
superpatriotman
(6,246 posts)i.e. Federalist Society, Liberty Council, Heritage, AEI, Club for Growth, etc.
crickets
(25,952 posts)Lonestarblue
(9,958 posts)Cases languish in appeals for five or more years. That is not justice. Not only do we need more federal justices, we need more progressives to counterbalance the right-wing extremists Trump and McConnell put on the federal courts.
Wounded Bear
(58,598 posts)I basically support the idea, but don't see that happening with the conserves having focused on the courts for so long.
Expanding it might be possible, but yeah, Manchin is a dire impediment to that.
Would love to see them expand the lower courts intelligently, maybe even splitting up some of the Circuits and expanding to 12-13 or so. The Ninth is huge geographically and getting pretty unmanageable in population, too.
sinkingfeeling
(51,438 posts)CaptainTruth
(6,576 posts)My idea is to replace 1 justice every 4 years, in rotating order. That way each POTUS appoints 1 justice per term.
With 9 justices it will limit SCOTUS judges to a 36-year term. If a justice passes away a replacement can be appointed but only to serve the remainder of the 36 year term.
One way to think about it is that each of the 9 seats gets a new judge in it every 36 years, & the replacements are staggered 4 years apart so each POTUS gets to pick 1 replacement per term.
This system where one POTUS can get zero picks & the next POTUS can get 2 (or 3 or more) is inherently unfair.
usaf-vet
(6,161 posts)This was particularly egregious during the tRump administration. I doubt tRump knew any of the bios of the candidates put before him.
For the most part, I believe Raymond Burr would have made it to a federal bench If he had not died in 1993. After all, he won every court case he participated in.
peggysue2
(10,823 posts)Breyer's basic argument is changing the number of justices would be perceived as a purely partisan act and further erode the integrity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public.
Of course, you could just as easily argue that Republicans have already turned the question into a partisan battle after what McConnell has done--his refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing during President Obama's tenure and then pushing 3 highly ideological candidates onto the court during Trump's years.
At this point, the commission announcement may simply be a shot across the bow from the Biden Administration, a message for McConnell and the court as well. The Biden team has a program and policies they intend to deliver on; they will use any and all roads to reach their destination.
Could get interesting!
usaf-vet
(6,161 posts)That would certainly help to bring the court to what Breyer thinks it is now.
peggysue2
(10,823 posts)Then the stories changed indicating he wasn't ready, at least not yet. I'd hate to see a repeat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg where a justice's death doesn't coincide with a favorable replacement. Not that anyone could replace the iconic RBG but the ultimate choice was her absolute opposite. Purposely so, methinks.
Personally? I'd like to see term/age limits batted around for the Supreme Court.
LiberalFighter
(50,783 posts)Receiving the salary they had as their pension is wrong. Senior justices should not receive full salary either.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)Judges should not have a financial incentive to stay on longer than they are capable of serving well.
As FDR put it: "We think it so much in the public interest to maintain a vigorous judiciary that we encourage the retirement of elderly judges by offering them a life pension at full salary"
LiberalFighter
(50,783 posts)Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Hurry, hurry, hurry!!
Seize the power granted by the American people.
Full steam ahead!
Alert the engine room!
Now is the moment to set America free from the minority's tyranny!
calimary
(81,110 posts)Seize the time while youve got it.
Seize the moment!
Seize the day!
Politicub
(12,165 posts)This isnt some passing fancy for Biden: big change is often preceded by commissions and studies.
For an example, see how president Obama ended dont-ask-dont-tell in the military. It was a year-long effort that began with a study.
eleny
(46,166 posts)And on top of that it's a lovely diversion. They like diversions. Well, back atcha.