A two-part commission said Thursday that there are “significant” risks to expanding the number of judges in the Supreme Court, including the potential to undermine the legitimacy of the high court.
President BidenJoe BidenSemain fundraising in Europe as reconciliation talks ‘ongoing’: report Mexico calls for more US investment in Central America to stem migration flows Trump calls for Take Back Virginia Rally to hype Youngkin MORE had ordered the panel to examine possible reforms before the High Court, and it published preliminary results on Thursday.
Although the commission did not take a position on the proposals in Thursday’s materials and instead chose to highlight potential disadvantages and benefits, the group’s warning about adding judges to the bench stood out.
“The risk of the Court’s expansion is significant, including that it may undermine the very goal of some of its proponents of restoring the Court’s legitimacy. Recent polls suggest that a majority of the public does not support the court’s expansion, ”reads a draft document released by the White House on Thursday. “And as even some proponents of judicial enlargement acknowledged during the Commission’s public hearings, the reform – at least if it was carried out in the short term and at once – would be seen by many as a biased maneuver.”
The debate on reform comes amid a recent drop in the 6-3 Conservative majority’s approval rating and at the beginning of a blockbuster period in which judges will hear a direct challenge to the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade and a gun rights case, which may result in the extension of the second amendment.
The court was already under greater scrutiny for several controversial rulings recently made during its emergency, or so-called shadow document, posture and an explosive expression with the potential to drastically change American life, could burn calls for the High Court’s review.
The long “discussion material,” divided into five sections, examines the pros and cons of adding judges to the high court as well as other potential reforms.
Commission members will discuss the draft materials during a meeting on Friday. White House Press Secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiOvernight Health Care-Presented by National Council for Mental Wellbeing-NIH study finds mix-and-match boosters effective White House formally rejects Trump’s claim to executive privilege over Jan. 6 docs Overnight Energy & Environment-Presented by ExxonMobil-expected oil executors to answer supervisory questions MORE told reporters earlier this week that the final report would be submitted to Biden in mid-November. The final report is not expected to include recommendations for specific reform measures.
The document notes that expanding the judiciary, a policy known as “court packaging”, could benefit the court’s public reputation by allowing a president to “elect people who reflect the nation’s rich diversity” or allow the court to take more cases.
“Decisions from a more diverse judiciary may be more informed,” the document said. “More generally, a court that was drawn from a wider cross-section of society can be considered more acceptable to the public.”
However, the Commission also says that an extension of the court “could lead to a continuous cycle of future enlargements.”
“We have not sought to determine whether a particular perspective on the confirmation process or on the composition of the Court today is ‘correct’,” the document states. “But the more important point is that different sections of the public and the legal and academic communities understand the determinants and likely consequences of the current composition of the Court differently, and any legislator considering Supreme Court reform should be aware that the pursuit of immediate extension of the Court would involve taking a stand in a party competition where the perception is deeply divided. ”
Demand Justice, a progressive group that has advocated reforms such as expanding the judiciary and creating time constraints, issued a statement criticizing the draft materials as a waste of time and urging Congress to move forward with reforms.
“The paralysis-for-analysis reflected here is exactly what you would expect from a commission made up mainly of academics, including several hard-line conservatives who are fully satisfied with the status quo,” said Brian Fallon, the group’s chief executive. Manager.
“From the outset, the purpose of this commission was not to meaningfully confront party-political conquest of the Supreme Court, but rather to buy time for the Biden administration while fighting other legislative battles.”
Debate over the future of the Supreme Court raged in the waning days after the 2020 presidential election, when Republicans in the Senate hurried to confirm thePresident TrumpDonald Trump Tim Scott takes in. 3 million in third quarter Trump calls for Take Back Virginia Rally to hype Youngkin Overnight Defense & National Security – Partisan extremism poses ‘growing problem’ among veterans MORENominees of the Third Court, Amy Coney BarrettAmy Coney BarrettCouric says she edited Ginsburg interview to ‘protect’ justice from criticism Why Latinos need reform of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court is not political – and turning Roe v. Wade would not do so MORE, ahead of the November vote.
The move was seen by Democrats and large sections of voters as an overtly hypocritical form of constitutional hardball after Senate Republicans refused to give a candidate a hearing Merrick GarlandMerrick Garland Supreme Court signals willingness to reintroduce marathon bomber death sentence Pavlich: DOJ’s insane assault on parents Lawsuit over Texas abortion restriction tests limits on state laws MORE, former President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaTrump Encourages Take Back Virginia Rally to Hype Youngkin On The Money – Chains You Can’t Believe: Biden Tackles Supply Spins White House Struggles to Avert Supply Chain Crisis MOREhas chosen to replace the late judge Antonin Scalia due to the claim that election year confirmations should be avoided.
Candidate Biden then largely rejected the question, but promised in the wake of the campaign to set up a commission to examine various reform proposals, including adding seats to the bench as well as other measures considered less extreme, a promise he delivered in April.
The commission, chaired by former White House adviser and former senior Justice Department official and Yale law professor Cristina Rodríguez, consists of 36 members, including constitutional scholars and academics such as Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and professor at New York University Richard Pildes.