Biden Creating Commission to Study Expanding the Supreme Court

IMO the courts are overwhelmed and need to be expanded one way or the other. Increase the number of district courts and have the number of justices match the number of districts. Maybe consider having SCOTUS have enough justices that they can divide up the case load - i.e. lets say there are 14 justices, 7 get randomly assigned to each case. I don't think the current way we do it is going to be sustainable in the long run.

If there's concern about drastically increasing the number of SCOTUS justices under one administration, then roll out the increase slowly. For example, one new justice seat appointed every two years until the new number is reached. That'd allow for a change in senate to have some say, as well as potentially a new executive administration.

Pommer said:

Republicans also had “Rockefeller Republicans” too, though. Just think, a Liberal Republican, it sounds almost oxymoronic.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in Congress, "moderate" Republican is an oxymoron. This is also the case in many state legislatures.

trunks2k said:

IMO the courts are overwhelmed and need to be expanded one way or the other. Increase the number of district courts and have the number of justices match the number of districts. Maybe consider having SCOTUS have enough justices that they can divide up the case load - i.e. lets say there are 14 justices, 7 get randomly assigned to each case. I don't think the current way we do it is going to be sustainable in the long run.

If there's concern about drastically increasing the number of SCOTUS justices under one administration, then roll out the increase slowly. For example, one new justice seat appointed every two years until the new number is reached. That'd allow for a change in senate to have some say, as well as potentially a new executive administration.

Click to expand...

I agree that lower courts need more judges. It don't think that there is any non-political need to expand the Supreme Court. The idea of expansion of the Supreme Court will be debate vigorously with the political left on one side and everyone else on the other.

The bottom line is that Supreme Court (and the judiciary in general) should be conservative balance to the president and the Congress. This has been shown in the last 5 years.

mark46 said:

I agree that lower courts need more judges. It don't think that there is any non-political need to expand the Supreme Court. The idea of expansion of the Supreme Court will be debate vigorously with the political left on one side and everyone else on the other.

Click to expand...

I suspect Biden agrees.

He knows the progressives want to expand SCOTUS, but he himself doesn't. Rather than alienate a sizable bloc who are probably the second-largest reason he won the election in the first place, he's going to appoint a bipartisan commission (who will almost certainly say "no") and then tell the progressives, "Sorry, but the experts say it's a bad idea, so we're not going to do it."

Aldebaran said:

That's a big "if". How would the Republicans ever gain power if the democrats change things to keep themselves in power?

Click to expand...

By proposing fact-based rational policies which are popular among a broad coalition of voters ... nah, who am I kidding, they'd never do that.

rjs330 said:

What if, what if? Are we just going to keep upping the ante?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that taking advantage of having a majority in the Senate is "upping the ante", so much as playing the game how it is supposed to be played. I can understand why the GOP would want to characterize it otherwise after losing the majority in last election, but it doesn't really sound sincere.

mark46 said:

The bottom line is that Supreme Court (and the judiciary in general) should be conservative balance to the president and the Congress. This has been shown in the last 5 years.

Click to expand...

Sometimes you need a progressive balance to the president and the Congress. Especially considering the last four years.

The first two years of the Trump Administration was conservatism run amuck--and thank heavens that Americans had the good sense to exercise the only check and balance they had by voting in a majority of Democrats to the House.

How extreme is the current Supreme Court? So extreme that even John Roberts is often voting with the liberals in order to put his finger in the dike.

How dysfunctional is the Supreme Court? See above.

Fantine said:

Sometimes you need a progressive balance to the president and the Congress. Especially considering the last four years.

The first two years of the Trump Administration was conservatism run amuck--and thank heavens that Americans had the good sense to exercise the only check and balance they had by voting in a majority of Democrats to the House.

How extreme is the current Supreme Court? So extreme that even John Roberts is often voting with the liberals in order to put his finger in the dike.

How dysfunctional is the Supreme Court? See above.

Click to expand...

Why do we need take the power away from the voters, in the name of balance? The voters have every right to elect a socialist or a populist president, and have that president appoint judges. The balance is creating by VOTING for the president, and also for senator or House member.

The goal should be that the government represent and execute the will of the people. There is no goal of balance. Where would we be if the Congress under Roosevelt or Johnson were balanced? Little would have gotten done.

BOTTOM LINE
It is sad but true that we elected a Republican Congress for much of Obama's term. It is sad but true that we elected Trump as the one to appoint judges.

Elections have consequences. It is just that simple.

If the left wants their goals, then they should elect a president and Congress that agrees with those goals.

rjs330 said:

What if, what if? Are we just going to keep upping the ante? One thing you CAN be sure of, the republicans WILL do it if the democrats do. In ten years we may have a 17 man supreme court. This is just boneheaded. The republicans didn't do it when the left had the majority of the court. And Mcconnell acted within his authority. As the democrats could have done if they had the power. That's politics.

THIS is something entirely different. This is changing the game completely. And if the democrats are so nareow minded they can't see the future well it's on their own heads.

Click to expand...

When exactly did the left have the majority of the court?

mark46 said:

Why do we need take the power away from the voters, in the name of balance? The voters have every right to elect a socialist or a populist president, and have that president appoint judges. The balance is creating by VOTING for the president, and also for senator or House member.

The goal should be that the government represent and execute the will of the people. There is no goal of balance. Where would we be if the Congress under Roosevelt or Johnson were balanced? Little would have gotten done.

BOTTOM LINE
It is sad but true that we elected a Republican Congress for much of Obama's term. It is sad but true that we elected Trump as the one to appoint judges.

Elections have consequences. It is just that simple.

If the left wants their goals, then they should elect a president and Congress that agrees with those goals.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that Democrats received many more votes than Republicans, even in both Houses of Congress, for years? ThT a Republican has only won the popular vote once in 28 years? Gerrymandering, voter suppression, McConnell's chicanery have given us minority rule too long. So yes, we are fed up and, if not balance, we should st least get the representation we deserve.

Aldebaran said:

One those are filtered through the leftist Press, even the most rational policies are dismissed if they were proposed by Republicans.

Click to expand...

Perhaps some day we'll see a policy rational enough to put that statement to the test.

Fantine said:

Are you aware that Democrats received many more votes than Republicans, even in both Houses of Congress, for years? ThT a Republican has only won the popular vote once in 28 years? Gerrymandering, voter suppression, McConnell's chicanery have given us minority rule too long. So yes, we are fed up and, if not balance, we should st least get the representation we deserve.

Click to expand...

Then my all means work within the states to secure better representation.

If you mean the unfairness of certain senators representing many more people than others, that would require a constitutional amendment to change.

mark46 said:

Then my all means work within the states to secure better representation.

Click to expand...

You mean like this?

Text - H.R.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021

TLK Valentine said:

Maybe -- but the legislative branch expands in proportion to the population, and the executive branch expands to respond to new problems.

When SCOTUS was expanded to nine members, the US population was approximately 38.5 million. Now it's about 328.2 million. A couple more seats wouldn't be such a terrible idea.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Way back in the 1790s, the federal judiciary consisted only of District Courts and SCOTUS. There were no judges assigned to the Circuit Courts of Appeal. SCOTUS justices actually rode the circuits to hear appellate cases. (Along with district judges.) It wasn't until 1911, that Congress ending circuit riding. But the general idea all along was that there should be one SCOTUS justice to supervise and review appeals for each Circuit. In 1869, there were 9 circuits. And 9 SCOTUS justices. There are now 13 Courts of Appeals--12 for the states, and 1 Federal Circuit based in Wash., D.C. (The Chief Justice is always assigned the Federal Circuit.) But we still have only 9 SCOTUS seats. The link has more details.

https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/circuit-riding

SCOTUS definitely needs modernization. As I posted a few months ago, I'd add 5 justices. But divide the Court into 2 panels of 7 justices each. Cert petitions will be divided equally between the panels who will decide what cases will be accepted for hearings. Just as they do now. They'll collaborate so that each panel knows what case the other hears. This will avoid the possibility that 2 cases with essentially the same legal issue might heard by different panels. And eliminate the risk of 2 different rulings on the same legal question. There are no witnesses at SCOTUS hearing. The lawyers for each side present their cases and are questioned by the justices. This can all be done by teleconferencing. There is no longer any need for live, in-person Court sessions. Which will save time and money. Splitting the workload like this will effectively double the number of cases that can be heard. The only things against it are tradition, and politics.

Edited to add: Another change I’d support is a Constitutional amendment to impose a mandatory retirement age of 80 for all federal judges, SCOTUS included. This will provide judges with reasonably long careers, but still allow for fairly regular and more predictable infusion of new blood. And the amendment should also include a section requiring that Congress vote yea or nay on every federal judiciary appointee within 90 days of his/her nomination. No more playing politics during election years.

Aldebaran said:

One those are filtered through the leftist Press, even the most rational policies are dismissed if they were proposed by Republicans.

Click to expand...

This would sound convincing, if only the right wing Press were an example of rationality and fact based reporting.
One might similarly wonder what would happen if frogs had wings.

We have to use the only means at our disposal.

HR1.
Statehood for DC and possibly Puerto Rico.
Regaining the courts that were unbalanced by McConnell's treachery.

Look at all the states with Dem governors and Republican legislatures. The people of the state as a whole are obviously saying they want a more progressive state. They are angry at being gerrymandering into voicelessness. PA.WI.MI.KY. All the swing states pretty much.
And then you have a red state like mine where the legislature has probably passed 10 clearly unconstitutional laws that even Coney Barrett would overturn. The moderate Republican governor tries to contain them, but a simple majority can override his vetos.
We are trying to stop a bloodless coup that was weaponized by huge infusions of corporate cash and disinformation/propaganda. 80 million American rose up and said enough. We owe it to them.

Not sure packing the court is a good idea.

But after the Garland nomination I cant really blame the D's if the want to go that route.

durangodawood said:

Not sure packing the court is a good idea.

But after the Garland nomination I cant really blame the D's if the want to go that route.

Click to expand...

If it's a bad idea, the commission will say it's a bad idea... and Biden is the type to listen to good advice.

Let us remember that Biden can't expand the court -- only Congress can do that. Any attempt to do so will most assuredly be blocked by McConnell no mater what the commission says, and if they try it in spite of the commission's advice, Biden would most likely veto it.

GreatLakes4Ever said:

The standard is now that if the President is not the same party as the Senate, they don’t get to make judicial picks. McConnell has set that standard. What is your plan to get us back to a standard where holding the Senate and the White House isn’t necessary?

Click to expand...

Don't you think the Senate has right to confirm a judicial pick? That IS the standard. So if the Senate doesn't approve they don't approve. I mean what's the point of an approval process if its pretty much automatic. That's the whole point of checks and balances.