President Biden Creates Supreme Court Commission To Consider Court-Packing Plan

On Friday, President Joe Biden issued an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The order is the fulfillment of his pledge on the campaign trial to consider the expansion of the Supreme Court, a court-packing scheme advocated by some Democrats to retake control of the court from its current conservative majority. Even though I have long argued for the expansion of the Supreme Court, I opposed these calls as a raw effort to pack the Court.  I have a column out this morning discussing the Commission.

The group is called

“to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals. The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s 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 Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”

The 36 members include many respected and thoughtful academics.  It is also heavily liberal and Democratic.  Professor Josh Blackwell notes that, by his count, there are only around seven moderate to conservative members giving an over 2-1 advantage for liberals on the Commission. As Blackwell notes, that is better than many faculties which have only one or two (if any) conservative faculty members. Over the last couple of decades, faculties have purged their ranks of conservative and libertarian faculty members.  The result is a diversity of thought that often runs from the left to the far left on faculties.  This imbalance is often used in Washington to produce letters with hundreds of law professors universally denouncing conservative nominees or supporting liberal proposals.

Such ideological bias is now an assumption on faculties, panels, and journals. That does not mean that these members will not give serious consideration to these issues.  Some of these members did sign the letter seeking the rejection of Justice Brett Kavanaugh or supporting the impeachment of President Trump. However, while those stands are likely to alienate conservatives, such views do not necessarily mean that they cannot do a fair or thorough job.

For the record, I have argued for the expansion of the Court for decades. My proposal was to increase the court to 17 or 19 members (the larger option allows for the possible return to the tradition of two justices sitting on lower courts each year by rotation). My review of similar size courts (including appellate courts sitting “en banc”) shows less stagnation around a single jurist as the swing vote and greater intellectual diversity.

However, there was a critical catch. The increase to 17 or 19 justices would occur slowly so no president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. The commitment would be for a full court over roughly two decades. That is the difference between reforming and packing a court.

This week, many reaffirmed that they want a quick expansion to create an unassailable liberal majority. It is precisely what Ginsburg warned against. When asked about calls to expand the Court, Ginsburg said it would destroy the continuity and cohesion of the Court. She added to NPR: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

That view was dismissed by Democratic members who declared that control of Congress would lead to control of the Court.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler also declared that “the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.” Rep. Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass., tweeted: “If (the Senate) holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple.”

There are also proposals for the creating of entirely new courts or limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This parade of horribles will now be the focus of this Commission. The hope of advocates is that they will recommend some form of substantive change but they will face opposition in the Congress which (unlike the Commission itself) is almost evenly divided.

These calls may appeal to the most extreme voices in the Democratic Party, but the public is overwhelmingly opposed to court packing schemes. Yet, there is a smaller percentage that drives both parties in Congress because they have a pronounced impact in primaries. The Commission may offer some political cover to Biden but it is unlikely that many on the far left will be satisfied with cosmetic changes after 180 days.

129 thoughts on “President Biden Creates Supreme Court Commission To Consider Court-Packing Plan”

  1. You don’t get reform from regressive liberals you get a new Hitler or a new Stalin.

  2. The socialist party will ask for six seats for fifteen and put socialists in every one of them in order to get rid of the gains we made to balance out the far left socialist fascists and that is ALL there is to this regressive liberal garbage Pack polls and pack the courts and then pretend to be good citizens. Just a bunch of fascist scum marxist scum.

  3. The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which is sworn to support the Constitution. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. The resolution and penalty for the failure of judges and Justices to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution is impeachment and conviction (i.e. should include Drawing and Quartering for high treason).

    The need is for but ONE Chief Justice with justifiable assistance from an infinitesimal number of associates; reinforced by the power of constitutional impeachment and conviction. The imperative constitutional amendments are a severely restricted vote and the power of impeachment and conviction by a simple majority. China actually enjoys a restricted vote republic, similar to that of the American Founders, but its government is not restrained by fundamental law, a prevailing document, as restrictive on government as the U.S. Constitution.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    ________________

    The votes for impeachment and conviction of judges and Justices are not obtainable as the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), following the anti-American, communist calamities of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Barry Soetoro and Joe Biden, have diluted the vote, nullified the Constitution and placed America on a path from its intended status as a restricted-vote republic of freedom, through impossible one man, one vote “democracy,” and into the inexorable, resultant enslavement of people and imposition of dictatorship.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    _________________

    Headline: Joe Biden said, “Amendments to the Constitution are not absolute.” Presumably, Joe Biden and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) believe that the Constitution is not severely restrictive of government but is, in fact, restrictive of free people and Biden appears to believe the Constitution says, “Do anything you like.” There is no hope for the freedom provided by the Founders in the Constitution. America is gone and cannot be retrieved or resurrected. The Founders provided the solution to tyranny and oppression when they seceded from Great Britain and established America.

    To wit,

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776
    _____________________________

    The one man, one vote democracy of the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) is impossible.

    To wit,

    “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”

    “From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by

    a dictatorship.”

    “Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

    “It profits me but little, after all, that a vigilant authority… averts all dangers from my path… if this same authority is the absolute master of my liberty and my life.”

    “No sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere… than it exercises… insupportable tyranny.”

    “When…the people are invested with the supreme authority…they discover a multitude of wants… to satisfy these exigencies recourse must be had to the coffers of the state.”

    “To lay down… limits to the action of the government; to confer certain rights on private persons, and to secure to them the undisputed enjoyment of those rights… [are] the main objects.”

    – Alexis de Tocqueville

    1. “Myanmar Military Seizes George Soros Organization’s Bank Accounts, Announces Arrest Warrants After Coup”

      The Soros-owned foundation’s assets were seized and arrest warrants were filed for 11 of its employees. The military government in Myanmar, in place after a coup provoked by widespread accusations of voter fraud plagued the country’s recent election, has now seized the bank accounts of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. After taking control of the country in a military coup provoked by allegations of voter fraud earlier this year, the Myanmar military government has seized several bank accounts belonging or affiliated with George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and has announced arrest warrants for 11 members of the organization in the country “on suspicion of giving financial support to the civil disobedience movement against the military junta.” The government will also take legal action against the Open Society Foundations, which they allege violated “restrictions on the activities of such organizations” and did not receive approval from Myanmar’s authorities for the deposit of $5 million into their Myanmar bank accounts. It is also alleged to have illegally withdrawn $1.4 million from its bank accounts. A website that tracks Myanmar political developments from Thailand wrote, “Military-aligned groups including the Union Solidarity and Development Party have accused Soros of manipulating Myanmar’s politics by supporting civil society organizations in the country.”

      National File reported extensively on the ties between Soros, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and recently ousted State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi:

      Clinton advised Aung San Suu Kyi to contest a parliamentary seat in the 2012 Burmese elections, which Aung San Suu Kyi ultimately did, kick starting the latter’s formal political career in Burma, also known as Myanmar.
      Aung San Suu Kyi also received strong support from then-President Barack Obama, who routinely advocated for her release from house arrest. Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested repeatedly during the 1990s and 2000s for “subversive acts”, following her involvement in riots against the Myanmar government.
      Obama awarded her the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal in 2012, which she described as “one of the most moving days of my life”. Ultimately, the Obama administration engineered Aung San Suu Kyi’s rise to power in 2015, by placing sanctions on Myanmar and insisting on only removing them if Aung San Suu Kyi was given a political role in the country.
      Another important ally of Aung San Suu Kyi was progressive billionaire George Soros and his global NGO network, which strongly supported her activities.

      Myanmar also recently banned Facebook and Twitter in the country after they alleged the platforms used their algorithms to promote anti-military protests following the military takeover.

      – Tom Pappert, National File
      ______________________

      “We will stop him.”

      – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
      _____

      “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
      ________________________________

      Where are the Patriots in the American military after voter fraud (starting with the illegal immigration of voters since 1863 and continuing as we write), election corruption, vote tampering and ballot harvesting in the U.S. as part of the Obama Coup D’etat in America?

      Oh, yeah, they’re sitting on their huuuuuge compensation packages – they like “free stuff,” not free-dumb!

  4. Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish was to let the winner of the 2020 election nominate her replacement. But Republicans steadfastly believe whichever party controls the Senate gets to decide whether or not to hold hearings to fill Supreme Court vacancies during an election year.

    Mark Levin believes SCOTUS justices should have term limits. Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson & Rick Perry have favored term limits for SCOTUS justices in the past. A Marquette Law School poll showed that 72% of Americans support term limits for SCOTUS justices. It’s entirely possible this Supreme Court commission will take this into consideration.

    1. But only if it creates a case for the Democrats to pack the court with other Democrats. Don’t doubt me.

    2. On the few occasions I have attended a proceeding in a court of law, there was but ONE judge presiding over the case, just like, oh, say, there is but ONE President and there is but ONE Speaker of the House and there is but ONE Leader in the Senate and there is but ONE Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and there is but one School Principal and there is but ONE CEO of Apple, etc., etc., etc.

      In my experience, ONE judge that a defendant disagreed with was upheld on appeal by but ONE superior judge.

      The court of appeals and corrective action for the Chief Justice is impeachment and conviction, the process of which must be streamlined and accelerated.

      The sole reason to seat more than one Justice on the Supreme Court is to corrupt it.

      The basis for corruption in the American republic is the elimination of severe vote restrictions, elimination of the dominion of the Constitution, and imposition of anti-Constitutional, anti-American one man, one vote democracy.

      It takes but ONE judge to “…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
      _____________________________________________________________________________

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

    3. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was anti-constitutional and anti-American.

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was to nullify the U.S. Constitution.

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg hated the U.S. Constitution, publicly stating, having sworn to support the U.S. Constitution, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

      Now you get it.

      The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they hate actual Americans, American freedom and America.

      “Legal voter, patriotic American,” the republic of Ben Franklin and the American Founders was a severely restricted-vote republic under the absolute dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and its first presidential election of George Washington, a leader of the kinetic and violent American Revolution, enjoyed a turnout of 11.6% by design, as it maintained an immigration policy further restricting the vote by restricting citizenship to “…free white person(s)…,” which is legitimate to this date and was only unconstitutionally overturned by the brutal violence of military force and occupation of a despot and dictator who assumed power unconstitutionally after unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, and who espoused and expounded on the proper resolution to slavery which was the compassionate repatriation of freed slaves to Liberia, Africa, for their own security, self-esteem and sense of nationhood, and which was fully aligned with the immediate deportation required by four iterations of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802.

  5. Here is what I have long believed about SCOTUS service:

    Each justice should serve for a single 18-year term. No reappointments. That means a new appointment every two years. That, in turn, would mean that no POTUS would ever have the opportunity to appoint a majority. If a justice dies after an incumbent POTUS has already made his or her four appointments, the next POTUS makes that nomination.

    If that means the High Court functions with eight justices for a while, so be it. In the case of 4-4 ties on an eight-justice Court, there should also be a provision for such cases to be reheard and reargued when a nine-justice SCOTUS is again in place.

    1. “My review of similar size courts (including appellate courts sitting “en banc”) shows less stagnation around a single jurist as the swing vote and greater intellectual diversity.”

      I don’t understand why JT thinks more than nine justices is a good idea. The Federal Reserve has nine governors. I assumed both institutions had nine because that was as big as a committee could get without becoming a bureaucracy, but I’m not an organizational psychologist.

      1. SCOTUS long had as many Justices as there are federal circuits. There are now 13 federal circuits (the 12 regional circuits plus the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).

        “nine … was as big as a committee could get without becoming a bureaucracy”

        Do you think Congress should also limit committees to 9 members?

        1. Congressional committees are not the point at all.

          The only reason the Democrats want to do this, Anonymous, is that they want to pack the courts. If the Republicans held the Presidency and the Senate, the Democrats would be screaming about NOT packing the court. Only the Democrats are totalitarian enough to even consider the proposal.

          1. Again: SCOTUS long had as many Justices as there are federal circuits. There are now 13 federal circuits. The court’s size has increased before, and plenty of groups of more than 9 function effectively. I’m questioning your claim that “I assumed both institutions had nine because that was as big as a committee could get without becoming a bureaucracy,” which is not a claim about partisanship.

            “Only the Democrats are totalitarian enough to even consider the proposal.”

            I don’t believe that. McConnell was totalitarian enough to refuse to allow Senate hearings on Garland’s nomination. I believe that if the positions were reversed, Republicans would consider it too.

              1. I’m not trolling. I’m stating my beliefs, which are different than yours, but my response was sincere discussion. I didn’t insult you, and I wasn’t any more insulting about Republicans than you were about Democrats. Just what did I write that leads you to interpret it as trolling?

                1. “McConnell was totalitarian enough to refuse to allow Senate hearings on Garland’s nomination. I believe that if the positions were reversed, Republicans would consider it too.”

                  I believe both statements are patently untrue. I took that as trolling, which for the record, I don’t begrudge you. I hammer you guys, too.

                  1. It’s a fact that McConnell refused to allow Senate hearings on Garland’s nomination to SCOTUS.

                    It’s my opinion that that’s a totalitarian move on his end and that Republicans would consider court packing if the positions were reversed, just like it’s your opinion that “Only the Democrats are totalitarian enough to even consider the proposal.” Were you trolling when you said that? (I don’t assume you were.) If it’s not trolling for you to say that, why is it trolling for me to express the opposite opinion?

                    I guess that you and I define “trolling” differently. For me, the biggest factors in trolling are probably a lack of sincerity, dishonesty, and a desire to tick people off.

                    1. “It’s my opinion that that’s a totalitarian move on his end and that Republicans would consider court packing if the positions were reversed, “

                      Your opinion is wrong. The Republicans in recent years stayed away from that type of disorder. The Dems of today are totalitarian and want a single party. It seems that Democrats have an affinity to be like the CCP.

                    2. Ah, yes, Republican Majority Leader only choose the “disorder” of refusing to hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee and then rushing another nominee through right before an election.

                    3. When Harry Reid changed the agreed upon rules he cannot expect the Republicans not to follow suit. That is what happened. Neither action was appropriate, but Reid struck first making it a Democrat foul.

                    4. Anon , there is this thing we call politics…… and yeah they play that game in DC….duh !. So yes you are trolling as usual. Politics is a dirty business…it has rules , and that one party can do certain things over “the other” requires knowledge and use of those rules. As we see now the zeig heil party can’t stand those rules and again wants to change them to suit their fancy. It’s a never ending cycle of hypocrisy and power grab with the zeig heil demoratzi apparatchik party.And with our system dumbed down to an almost one party swamp state it’s even more egregious.

        2. Forgive me, Anonymous if I seemed abrupt. I often can’t tell troll from friend.

          Do I think committees should be limited to nine members? I really don’t know. I would start with nine and then say more only if there is a compelling reason for having more. Maybe in the case of Congress, there is such a compelling reason.

            1. Ok, that might be the case, but if that were so, Ruth Ginsburg might have argued for it before her death.

              1. True, she might have. I don’t always agree with her, just like you don’t always agree with her.

          1. Diogenes, leftists like bureaucracy and like control. The Legislature as we all recognize is a policy maker and represents many areas of the country and many issues. The Supreme Court is supposed to deal with Constitutional issues not legislative ones. If they are too busy it is because they are being pushed to legislate instead of judge. Congress should pass clear laws in accordance to the Constitution. If they fail to meet Constitutional requirements like Obamacare the law should be immediately sent back to Congress to be rewritten.

    2. I like your idea, The life expectancy very different when the concept of lifetime appointments was advanced. But I would also like to see term limits for members of the House and the Senate!

    3. Thats a good protocol. Question is, does the Senate still have veto power? If not, we need a constitutional amendment to remove the Senate power of advise and consent.
      I offered a solution of one appointment per presidential term. The longest serving would move to Senior Justice, they could write opinions but they would vote to break ties. There could be as many Seniors as they want. Pay would go to zero.

  6. Jonathan: Fulfilling a campaign pledge Pres. Biden has now established a Commission to address SCOTUS reforms. And of the 36 members of the Commission most are apparently of the liberal persuasion. No big surprise. You attribute this to the fact that conservative legal scholars are in short supply at most law schools. How is that? Now if conservative legal thinkers and professors are such a minority you are partly to blame. Having taught law and the Constitution for so many years why didn’t you make a greater effort to persuade your students to adopt conservative legal theory? I don’t know but I suspect students form their political views before they get to law school so they are a lost cause even before they enter your classroom. That aside, as evidence of the prevalence of “heavily liberal and Democratic” members of Biden’s Commission you cite one “Professor Josh Blackwell” for authority. “Blackwell” who?. You need to get another cite checker. The article you cite is actually by Josh Blackman, an associate professor of law at South Texas College of Law–not exactly the Harvard or Yale of the south. Blackman is not even a full professor. But because Blackman is a conservative legal thinker the Federalist Society, the sanctuary for conservative legal thinkers, calls him a “national thought leader on constitutional law”. Really? You and Blackman both opposed Trump’s first impeachment so I can understand why you would cite him for authority. You say the liberal ideological bias on the Commission does not “necessarily mean that they cannot do a fair or thorough job”. So what is your beef? But you are already complaining about the Commission, even before it has met or issued a report. You accuse the Commission of a “parade of horribles” that will appeal to the “most extreme voices of the Democratic Party”. The Commission is racially and ethnically diverse as well as ideologically diverse which means most conservative legal scholars, who are mostly white, did not get named. And probably why you and Blackman will have to take potshots at the Commission from the sidelines.

    Now you and Professor Blackman are not the only ones to accuse Biden of trying to “pack the Court”. Carl Rove was on FoxNews yesterday and accused Biden of extreme “partisanship” by appointing Robert Bauer to head the Commission who Rove calls a “political hack”. When it comes to appointing Justices to the Court Republicans are the greatest practitioners of the art of “partisanship”. “Court packing” comes in many forms. Take the case in 2016 when President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, a respected moderate, to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Scalia. Mitch McConnell refused to even give Judge Garland a hearing using the lame excuse that next president should make that choice. After Trump became president he nominated conservative Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy and Gorsuch was immediately confirmed. When Justice Ginsburg died in September of last year Trump nominated the ultra-conservative Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy. I don’t recall you complaining about these appointments as “court packing”. In fact you wrote several columns defending Barrett’s nomination. And this In spite of the fact that Barrett’s nomination came just before the election when, had he been consistent, McConnell should have refused to consider Barrett’s nomination and allowed the next president to make the choice. McConnell is big on hypocrisy but short on consistency–as are you. So stop complaining. Had Trump actually been able to flip a few state votes you might no be in this predicament. Elections have political consequences and Republicans and conservative legal scholars are now reaping the whirlwind!

    1. We’ll all reap the whirlwind if lunatics like you to get what you want.

      Biden is already disappointing me on his version of “unity.” I’m not alone. The Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index has Biden stuck at -8. Congress is evenly divided after a contentious election, and Democrats actually lost seats in the house. Now is not the time to pack the courts, kill the filibuster, and tear down the border. Do so and the day will come very soon when you will curse yourself for having done so.

      What is wrong with you people??

      1. None of what you fear will happen is gonna happen, Diogenes. Not a snowball’s chance in h***.

      2. What is unity to you, Diogenes? Agree with everything the Republicans want?

        “Democrats actually lost seats in the house.”

        Yep, and they gained seats in the Senate.

          1. They didn’t steal any in Georgia. Warnock and Ossoff won legally, even though you don’t like the outcomes. You can partly blame Trump for being so pigheaded that he helped depress Republican voter turnout in the runoff.

        1. You act as if both sides could provide their records. High tech by banning and cancelling along with leftist control of the media led to the results of that election. Wanting only one side of an argument heard in the public square is a sign of totalitarian thinking.

          1. But I don’t want only one side of an argument heard in the public square. My concern is more that a lot of conversation is taking place in self-segregated semi-public squares like Facebook.

            “You act as if both sides could provide their records.”

            Records for what?

    2. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but Mr. Biden has been on the record for so long in favor of the current nine-justice composition that he is unlikely to change it. However, what he has proposed will, if it comes to fruition, give him the political cover to, eventually, do nothing. If, in fact, that’s how he’s planning to proceed, it will be the only really smart thing he’s done so far, at least in my view.

      1. I hope you’re right, Warren. That’s still possible, but so far, Joe has been awfully accommodating to the Dennises of the world. I keep praying Joe will have an epiphany and at least triangulate with both parties.

        1. Thanks, ‘Dogenes’ (the name of one of my favorite figures in Greek mythology). The likelihood of Mr. Biden having an epiphany is, in my view, somewhere between bewtween ‘slim’ and ‘none’. . .and ‘Slim’ has skipped town. I find it unlikely that even one policy idea that emerged from such ‘triangulation’ would merit my support. Until and unless he takes a meat-ax to both the federal budget and the number of federal employees on the nation’s payroll, I can’t imagine there’s anything he could do that i would support.

          With luck, the GOP in 2024 will field an all-woman ticket–either Noem-Haley or Haley-Noem (I favor the former)–and Biden-Harris will get buried in a landslide.

      2. Warren….do you really believe Biden is mentally competent and is directing all of these Executive Orders be crafted and sets the terms and conditions for each and edits and approves the wording of everyone of them?

        Or….is he just signing whatever his Handlers are shoving in front of him and doing as he is told to do?

    3. Even though I didn’t vote for Mr. Tuimp in 2016–I voted for Evan McMullin, the guy from Utah–I was a fan of Trump’s policies. I voted for Mr. McMullin as a way (a) to avoid voting for Hillary Clinton and (b) to vote against Trump’s temperament and overall lack of intellectual curiosity about anything other than matters related to commercial real estate. In 2020, I held my nose and voted for Mr. Trump because (a) I was unsure (and still am) that Mr. Biden’s I.Q. exceeds his age and (b) I thought that Trump had done a pretty good job, certainly far better than I had expected when I didn’t vote for him in 2016.

      Whatever Mr. Biden can accomplish, he had better do pretty fast because, barring unforeseen developments between now and Election Day 2022, the Republicans will retake control of both the House and the Senate then. And when that happens, all of us who are unnerved (a) by Mr. Biden’s general lack of intelligence (including me), (b) by his physical frailty, and (c) by the quality and/or perspectives of the vast majoritiy of the people he’s nominated to serve in various government capacities will be able to rest easily once again.

      1. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 (I just abstained). I voted for him enthusiastically in 2020. I hope all your predictions are true.

        1. Diogenes, I am not a Republican. I like neither party but it is obvious that the Democrats of today want to turn the US into a single party state. That is what we see in China, so my focus is to oppose that desire while supporting the individuals civil liberties and the Constitution.Therefore, there was no choice for me in 2016 but to vote for a Republican and reverse the tide. That is now my belief on every level of government.

          Republicans, barring a few seem not to care what is done as long as they hold their personal power. We need Republicans to understand what Trump was trying to do even when they disagreed with his policies.

          Though at one time I liked Haley I found her to be a disappointment looking more to politics than the direction of the nation. I would support Ron DeSantis who has a vision and is one of the few politicians to hold onto his vision despite overwhelming powers against him. Not only did he hold his positions but he has been proven right.

    4. With respect, Mr. McIntyre, you either don’t know, or are choosing not to disclose, the argument that McConnell made in 2016 when he blocked Mr. Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland from being considered to succeed Justice Scalia on the High Court. McConnell blocked it because the Senate was controlled by Republicans and the White House was occupied by a Democrat. He said at the time that he hoped that, after the election, the White House and Senate would be controlled by one party. They were. And Judge Neil Gorsuch was promptly confirmed to succeed Justice Scalia.

  7. “Are you insinuating that you will assert your Second Amendment rights to take up arms against the federal government?”“

    (This will be interesting.)

    Tell us all exactly why the second amendment exists.

  8. This is easy. Any change to the Constitution or the status quo interpretation should require the change to be implemented when the other party takes the Presidency. Therefore if the idea is really a great idea then everyone would be okay with it regardless of party. Those who are purely political (as Democrats have been with almost all of their efforts to change any accepted status quo) can feel good that they are doing it not for political gain and to gain power, but for the best interest of all Americans.

  9. This is the best move Biden has made. At least there will be some analysis before action is taken. As a republican, I think the short term power grab is brazen at best, and bound to boomerang. But I like Turley’s idea of gradually increasing the court. That bears some review.

    1. At least there will be some analysis before action is taken.

      No. There will be a perception of analysis intended to make the action already determined appear reasonable and objective.

    2. I am so old I remember Obama appointing a bipartisan commision to solve the budget deficit
      They came up with 15 recommendations
      Obama ignored them all.
      The media memory holed the commision so Obama would never be held accountable.

      1. Are you talking about the Simpson-Bowles report?

        https://web.archive.org/web/20121214121412/http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

        That’s hardly been “memory holed” by the media, and the required supermajority of commissioners didn’t approve the recommendations, so they weren’t sent to Congress. Why do you think that Obama could unilaterally act on them?

        If you’re talking about a different bipartisan commission, please clarify.

        1. and the required supermajority of commissioners didn’t approve the recommendations, so they weren’t sent to Congress. Why do you think that Obama could unilaterally act on them?

          It was a meaningless commission. Required? There are no requirements, just excuses to hide behind. Unilateral? That’s a special kind of stupid. The President and only the President can sign legislation.

          1. Congress and only Congress can pass legislation. The President cannot sign legislation if Congress doesn’t send it to him.

  10. ‘At what point should reporters stop saying “Chief Justice Roberts joined the court’s three liberals” and simply start saying “the court’s four liberals?” @eddiezipperer

    1. “The court’s four liberals” is spot-on and dead-right. Thank goodness for Justice Barrett. Fearless prediction: She will be SCOTUS’s first female Chief Justice. She’d be terrific. As for the current Chief: Good riddance, and the sooner, the better.

      1. Supreme Court Justices aren’t Liberal or conservative though they may rule in favor of one or another. It has to do more with their interpretation of the Constitution which varies considerably. Roberts is definitely not the type of judge classical liberals (as opposed to the Liberal / Progressive) would or should like.

        His decision on Obamacare demonstrates that he will rule and pass legislation from the bench and will enter the policy part of government. Congress voted on a bill after there was a discussion on whether or not the fine should be a tax. The bill wouldn’t have passed had it been a tax. Therefore the legislative branch decided against the tax yet Roberts changed the law and approved it as a tax.

  11. That does not mean that these members will not give serious consideration to these issues.

    First of all, was our constitutional scholar host asked to be on this commission? If not, why not? He is likely in the top 5 of recognized legal minds and highly respected for his steadfast commitment to preserving the constitutional system the framers gave us. He’s also openly in favor of increasing the size of the court and leans left politically. I read somewhere that on cross-examination, never ask questions you don’t know the answer to. This commission already has the answers and they will be asking questions over the next 6 months for the purpose of putting a patina of legitimacy to this court packing scheme. Combine this with H.R.1, 2 new states and the recent E.O.’s on guns. It would appear the Uniter-in-Chief is telling American conservatives the beatings will continue until moral improves. Molon Labe!

    1. “He is likely in the top 5 of recognized legal minds”

      I doubt it.

      Just where is this ranking of “recognized legal minds” that you refer to?

  12. Turley: “The increase to 17 or 19 justices would occur slowly so no president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term.“

    Kewl! We’ll take 2 Biden appointments. However, your concession is not going to go over well with Trumpists. But I trust you will maintain this view when you appear on Fox News as a paid contributor. Good luck with that!

    1. Turley: “The increase to 17 or 19 justices would occur slowly so no president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term.“

      So its appointments, not the number on the court. That exposes the lie from the beginning

      It its appointments, just allow 1 appointment per term. The President gets one per term. The most senior stays on, and only votes on ties.

      Wow that was way to simple.

      1. I’m reminded of what my high-school calculus teacher once said: “For every complex problem, there is always at least one solution which is quick, easy. . .and WRONG.” The post by Mr. Doofus, a.k.a. iowan2, is a textbook example. He should also learn to spell and punctuate.

  13. Dear Professor says…”Even though I have long argued for the expansion of the Supreme Court, I opposed these calls as a raw effort to pack the Court…” What didn’t have the guts to says is “Even though I have long argued for the expansion of the Supreme Court, I opposed these calls” at this point in time because Democrats control the Senate.

    The classic I was against the war before I was for the war that I was against when everyone was for so I was for it when the tide turned….Ad nauseam.

    The dear professor has no guts.

  14. If FDR couldn’t pull off packing the court in 1937, I can’t see Biden doing it now. FDR was criticized for this raw power grab, and even many Democrats opposed it. If the Democrats push this through, they will pay in 2022.

    1. Exactly. America sees this for what it is… an FDR’esque power grab. With Baizou Biden’s war on common sense and lofty goals of making tran-sexual anything normal now we have this. They can not get their way on the merits ( as there is none on that score ). So the court packing is to them a sure fire way to jamb all kinds of poison pilled “laws” like throwing mud on the wall and seeing what doesn’t slither off.
      There are fewer and fewer politicos and people in general with common sense as there were in 1937….. or we would not have a senile puppet as president. Hence the media being a whore for such politics of the left more so than ever. This admin is living up to the orwellian predictions of how democracies fall…. by spending from the public treasury to buy it’s way into the dumbed down citizenry it helped create just for this moment. The entitlements , reparations and flood of illegals we are paying for …and to what end ?. Again feelings over common sense being used to engineer our demise and the solidification of a one party state they dream of.

    2. Many Democrats opposed FDR. Democrats controlled all three houses (Senate, House, and Presidency) during all of FDR’s Reign of Error. Often with what we’d call “veto-proof” super-majorities today.

      Yet no president before or after FDR’s Reign of Error has vetoed more legislation. Nobody has even come close.

    3. Mitch McConnell engaged in a raw power grab by refusing to hold hearings on Garland’s nomination. Do you think he paid for it in 2016?

      1. He followed suit and did what Harry Reid did earlier. Not good, but that is what happens when our leaders play around with politics instead of policy making. The Democrats are predominantly at fault for this type of action.

          1. You are trolling again. You know perfectly well what was meant and your prior response tells us exactly that. Trolling hasn’t done you any good before and it won’t do you any good now.

            1. My claims that “Mitch McConnell engaged in a raw power grab by refusing to hold hearings on Garland’s nomination” and “Harry Reid did not refuse to hold hearings on judicial nominees” are true. That you consider it trolling to make true statements says more about you than me.

              1. Stop the trolling. You want to have a fight. Based on your earlier responses on the same subject you understood the discussion. You are purposely trying to take a tangent instead of dealing with the questions at hand. Stop trolling, now.

                1. I don’t take orders from anyone here, just like you don’t, and one can’t stop something one hasn’t started.

  15. Professor, you write that “. . . ideological bias is now an assumption on faculties, panels, and journals.” But you argue that this bias “. . . does not mean that these members will not give serious consideration to these issues.” You then acknowledge that, “Some of these members did sign the letter seeking the rejection of Justice Brett Kavanaugh or supporting the impeachment of President Trump.” Yet you conclude that “. . . while those stands are likely to alienate conservatives, such views do not necessarily mean that they cannot do a fair or thorough job.”
    However, it seems reasonable to assume that people who have not been either fair or thorough when offering their opinions in the court of public opinion will not be fair or thorough when offering their opinions on how to expand the Supreme Court. Indeed, it would be reasonable to assume they were chosen to sit on this committee precisely because they are individuals who favor ideologically directed judgment over disinterested observation.
    I suspect that your conclusion is more a pious hope than a considered conviction because I assume that over the past “couple of decades,” you have personally witnessed the purging of “conservative and libertarian faculty members” who do not conform to the “liberal” norm and that you are consequently aware that those who “purge” others for ideological deviance are neither fair nor thorough individuals, and certainly not disinterested scholars and objective observers, but rather true believers who are happy to destroy anyone who does not share their opinions and to ‘reform’ anything that does not confirm their beliefs about the world.
    Biden avoided discussing court packing for a good reason during the campaign. If silence is violence, it can also be a sin of omission.

  16. McConnell did Garland a favor by not having hearings on his nomination and then being rejected by the Senate, and if you read his rulings of the past five years, you would thank god he is not on the SC. I say this as a Hubert Humphrey Democrat, this move to pack the court will have untold negative effects on our politics for years to come.

    1. It s amazing how really daft Mr Garland is. By claiming ANTIFA goons are not terrorists “because most of their violence occurred at night , and insurrections only happen in the day”…… this toad is a partisan buffoon of high order. America dodged this poison pope by the grace of god. And a leftist power grab of a court packing would mandate sods like garland being appointed the new normal. Jeez what could go wrong with that insanity.

      1. Google search results say “No results found for ‘because most of their violence occurred at night , and insurrections only happen in the day.'” I also tried “because most of their violence occurred at night” “insurrections only happen in the day” but that search didn’t match anything either, nor did: garland “most of their violence occurred at night.” Just what are you purporting to quote from?

        1. The rules that led to Merrick Garland’s failure to be considered were created before one knew such an incident was going to occur. It started with Harry Reid and Reid’s power grab resulting in that problem. This has a completely different effect than packing the court. Packing the Court means re-politicizing the Supreme Court every time there is a power shift. Thus any such changes made should not occur in the same administration that created the change. Something like this should have time to ripen and be revoted on after elections and not take place until still, new elections occur.

          As far as the Merrick Garland quote, I think anonymous is correct. I think two things were conflated. The riots in the cities that occurred at night and the incident on Jan 6 that occurred during the day. I don’t think Garland was distinguishing such activities based on the time of day.

          1. “It started with Harry Reid and Reid’s power grab resulting in that problem”

            What power grab are you referring to?

            Are you talking about Reid’s decision to eliminate the judicial filibuster for lower courts in response to McConnell’s refusal to allow hearings on nominees? I’d call that McConnell’s power grab.

            If you’re talking about something else, please clarify.

            1. You apparently have no idea of what it means to agree to rules of restraint. Reid broke those rules. McConnell was following them.

    2. Garland very likely would have been approved. McConnell didn’t do anyone a favor by refusing to hold hearings.

      1. Garland would have been rejected without the displays seen by leftists when Kavanaugh was nominated. Of course the same people might have rioted to get Garland elected. Violence on the left seems to be tolerated.

  17. The Republicans stole a seat by refusing to consider any Obama nominee in the last year of his term but confirming a Trump nominee in the last couple of months of his.

    Tellingly, Turley presents no acknowledgement of that fact which is a major reason we are where we are, and why Democrats believe Republicans do not play by the rules. You cannot look at the issue of court packing without realizing Republicans changed the rules already to pack the court for them.

    1. There was no stolen seat you lefty. Politics 101 … it’s largely a game our political hacks in DC play. And guess what … the dems lost that game there. So you start your premise on being butt hurt on an avoidable loss…. feelings but not facts again huh.
      The rules are quite clear. Cheating is not present. It’s a zero sum game at times. Political capitol is spent playing these games. Your side loses and you cry waaa waaa waa. So your crocodile tears now puts your POV in on court packing…wow , real swift there captain socialist. And brain light chyna baizou biden back in 1983 excoriated that hideous FDR for his attempted hijack of the court by packing it. Yet in his fragile senile state here is plagiarist in chief baizou biden stumbling right into that fascist FDR path.

      1. Phergus, so because republicans could do as they pleased because they were in control and it was not cheating. Democrats cannot do the same? They are in control now and they can constitutionally do what republicans did. Except this time they are legally changing the number of justices in court. Because republicans chose to exercise authority and thumb their noses at democrats protesting their moves, republicans are now reaping the consequences.

    2. Democrats were the ones that “do not play by the rules” when they brazenly changed judicial nomination rules. They are just too illogical to anticipate the long term implications. The same inability to anticipate long term implications has been illustrated by Dem policies for the last year:
      – Defund police = more crime and murders.
      – Stop Trump border policies = more illegals and kids in cages
      – Shut down your economies for 70 weeks = businesses failing, the rich getting richer and the middle class getting poorer
      – Shut down pipelines and create negative energy policy = higher gas prices.
      – Let criminals burn cities for a year and run cities = destructions and Fascists taking over those cities
      – Support Joe Biden = radical progressives taking over policies
      – Raise taxes in states = income inequality and middle class leaving

      Now Joe is going to ignore the Trump tax cuts that created the BEST employment for Blacks, Hispanics, and women . and he’s going to give the US back to his funders in China. Just 3 months and a Democrat can ruin everything.

      1. Excellent!

        To the left the ends justify the means but their ends are short term political advantages, not good government.

    3. Exactly what rule(s) did the democratically elected Republican Senators break by not considering “any Obama nominee in the last year of his term but confirming a Trump nominee in the last couple of months of his.”?

    4. Elephant In the Room, you have things backward. You have switched the places where the tail and trunk should be.

  18. I think it would behoove Joe Biden to start reading history books, in particular all things French Revolution.
    Once he goes Full Monty into dismantling our Constitution and Separation of Powers, all bets are off.

    1. Are you insinuating that you will assert your Second Amendment rights to take up arms against the federal government?

      1. Are you insinuating that you will assert your Second Amendment rights to take up arms against the federal government?

        Well duh! It is a self-evident truth. Count on it.

        That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      2. “Are you insinuating that you will assert your Second Amendment rights to take up arms against the federal government?”

        I’m not quite sure this is the U.S. Constitutional federal government anymore, it sure isn’t behaving like it.

      3. Once there is majority rule without an intact Constitution then 51% can vote to enslave the other 49% That is a reason to uphold the Constitution even if there are provisions one doesn’t like. The left is desirous of destroying that concept which protects the minority. The French Revolution teaches us that leading members of the majority can become the minority and lose their heads in the process. (Democrats recently were bitten in the behind due to the previous decisions they made to short-circuit good government processes.)

        The rationale behind the Constitution was not for the federal government to make abrupt changes rather for it to make slow changes leaving most of the experimentation to the states.

        If the Constitution is destroyed by the left then one is not talking about second amendment rights, rather one is talking about all rights, for the Constitution limits the rights of the federal government that the left wishes to expand exponentially. That doesn’t mean one is asserting their Second Amendment rights. That means one is attempting to prevent powers from usurping the rights of the people the Constitution is pledged to protect.

      4. JS

        Dumb question.

        Lots of ways to legally and effectively oppose the government without fighting.

        That was a cheap troll

    2. “Once he goes Full Monty into dismantling our Constitution and Separation of Powers”

      You have an overactive imagination.

  19. I think you may have missed the mark with this one though: “Some of these members did sign the letter seeking the rejection of Justice Brett Kavanaugh or supporting the impeachment of President Trump. However, while those stands are likely to alienate conservatives, such views do not necessarily mean that they cannot do a fair or thorough job.”, as I have no faith in the intellectual honesty or integrity of the modern Left

    And if this succeeds, you can be sure that the GOP will do the same if and when they control the Congress and the WH again, and so on through the ages, until such time that everyone is a member of the Court

Leave a Reply