Posted on 12/08/2021 7:43:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court unanimously approved its nearly 300-page report on court reform Tuesday.
Established in April by executive order, the commission was tasked with producing a report that examined the contemporary debate over court reform, historical cases of when there were calls for court reform, and an analysis of the main arguments for and against certain proposals to reform the court, such as expansion, term limits, ethics reform, and more.
No specific recommendations were given in the report, and on the issue of court packing, the commission noted that the "profound disagreement among Commissioners" mirrors "the broader public debate."
"Supporters contend that Court expansion is necessary to address serious violations of norms governing the confirmation process and troubling developments in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that they see as undermining the democratic system. Opponents contend that expanding—or 'packing'—the Court would significantly diminish its independence and legitimacy and establish a dangerous precedent that could be used by any future political force as a means of pressuring or intimidating the Court. The Commission takes no position on the validity or strength of these claims," the report states. "We present the arguments in order to fulfill our charge to provide a complete account of the contemporary Court reform debate."
The panel also addressed the question of term limits and weighed the pros and cons of establishing them through a change in statute or a constitutional amendment.
"At a minimum, the contestability of statutory approaches counsels in favor of serious deliberation by Congress if it chooses to consider this route," the report says. "In these deliberations, we hope that Congress would keep in mind the central structural values of our Constitution, particularly the principle of judicial independence, and consider what future Congresses, armed with the same constitutional powers, might someday attempt. Indeed, in recent years, we have seen democratic governments 'regress' or 'backslide' with respect to judicial independence. This has come about through electoral majorities using their power to restructure previously independent institutions, including courts, to favor the political agendas of those governments."
The commission, comprised of 34 members and which held six public meetings, will now send the report to President Biden.
and that is all
Gee, what a brave group of people.
Deliberate timing on release, maybe a veiled threat about the Mississippi Abortion case
Not on Congress's list of priorities.
IOW, they spent a lot of time doing nothing and spending taxpayer's money like it was free.......................
Clear as mud. But, at least, it didn't conclude that adding a few was absolutely in the public interest.
So he can use it for an excuse to call for packing the court to his liking. FDR tried it and failed. You, sir [and I use that term extremely loosely] are no FDR - you can’t even figure out who keeps crapping in your pants every day.. LGBFJB....
Another worthless commission.
This surprises me. I would have assumed the commission was assembled SPECIFICALLY TO call for packing the SC.
In other words, they punted.
However, that’s better than I expected, which was a rubber-stamp for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court.
In fairness, the group was significantly divided on the subject, and said as much without forcing a conclusion. Seems that’s a good thing: either the group was fairly spread across political spectrum and showing a substantive split indicating court-packing would be purely political, or the group was predominantly biased Left (as we may expect from a Democrat-dominated government) and _still_ was substantively split indicating court-packing would be tyranny of the minority.
Good work if you can get it.
“we hope that Congress would keep in mind the central structural values of our Constitution,”
As my sainted Grandad used to say: “Hold out your hands. Hope in one and pee in the other. You let me know which one fills up first.”
L
Sometimes “we officially do not come to a conclusion” IS the correct response from a commission. They’ve demonstrated that the issue is predominantly a sociopolitical opinion, not an objective conclusion. They have no conclusion per se because there is no fair/rational/objective reason to add more judges to SCOTUS; those who want the Court tilted are in favor of tilting it, and those opposed observe that tilting it one way just opens the door for further packing to tilt it the other way when, inevitably, the opposition comes to power.
SCOTUS has already been “packed” to tilt it Left. That experiment has been tried. For Democrats to tilt it further Left via more packing would, as has been shown, be a temporary shift not persisting in their favor. The Commission is, in effect, concluding “if you pack it again, we’ll end up at this same place again - don’t bother.”
What a brave bunch of controlled chickens... cluck cluck cluck.... Please don’t cancel us PLEASE PLEASE.
I agree that a "no decision" is better than a bad decision. But the correct decision, if the commission was truly objective, and had the best course of action at the heart of their mission, would be to conclude that packing is wrong. And that it would further politicize the court.
As a side note to this post, watch the video of DeSantis after the article. Well worth the watch. 🙂
“No decision” is probably the best practical outcome: they pointedly did not recommend packing.
Had they returned with “don’t pack”, that would be construed as a political answer (”OMG the Commission is a bunch of right-wingers!” - however nonsensical that is). “No decision” makes clear that any movement toward packing will be profoundly controversial, a pure political move.
Unanimous? That is some real solid GroupThink on display.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.