The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Eupher on December 07, 2021, 11:27:39 AM
-
...they take NO POSITION on court packing.
Sorry, no link. Read part of the story on the Epoch Times web site.
ETA - It's MSN, so take it with a grain of salt.
President Joe Biden's U.S. Supreme Court Commission has released a draft report signaling "profound disagreement" regarding the size of the nation's highest bench but offering a more sympathetic view to the possibility of term limits for justices.
The bipartisan commission of legal experts was established to analyze the fundamental framework of the nation's highest court to determine whether changes should be made at a time when polls show public approval of the Supreme Court has dropped significantly in recent months. The commission will convene Tuesday to discuss and vote on whether to approve sending the report to the president.
The report spans hundreds of pages for court reform suggestions that legal experts have discussed since April via scheduled Zoom meetings. More than 30 members of the commission from various backgrounds arranged the report into several chapters, the most prominent for debate being the topics of "packing" new justices on the panel and imposing term limits for the bench.
Supporters of court expansion claim it 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," according to the report.
BIDEN'S SUPREME COURT COMMISSION 'DIVIDED' ON PACKING THE COURT
Opponents say expanding 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."
More at the link.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-commission-signals-profound-disagreement-on-court-packing-ahead-of-tuesday-vote/ar-AARzf0H
-
Opponents say expanding 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."
Well. Well. Not even a Lefty pretend commission can rubber stamp court packing.
-
but offering a more sympathetic view to the possibility of term limits for justices.
is the term of a SCOTUS Justice codified in the U.S. Constitution or some other document?
-
is the term of a SCOTUS Justice codified in the U.S. Constitution or some other document?
YES. Lifetime appointment. Designed to keep them free from influence.
-
YES. Lifetime appointment. Designed to keep them free from influence.
At the risk of being nitpicky, Article III, Section 1 doesn't specifically state "lifetime appointment" or anything approaching that.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It's been interpreted that way, as you point out, but it's a stretch to say that lifetime appointments are "codified."
It's absolutely true that this interpretation for "lifetime" appointment or until resignation or impeachment is intended to keep those judges impartial, but I ask -- howzat workin' out?
We all know that all 9 of the justices lean one way or another. Kennedy was the so-called "swing" voter, and Thomas is most definitely in the conservative camp as Sotomayor is in the "liberal" camp. Could argue that Roberts is a swing voter, but based on his own voting record especially regarding Obamacare, I put him squarely in the "liberal" camp.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
-
The nearly 300-page report was approved by all 34 members and will be sent to #SharterJoe.
He ain't gonna like it.
Upshot:
- No position on court-packing. The "commission" was just as divided as the rest of the country.
- Term limits - Congress would need to get its head out of its ass and determine unintended consequences should it gravitate toward implementing same. In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (My characterization through the double-speak, though YMMV...)
(https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/12/08/supreme-court-commission-n2600306?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=67b03d566e10566cd45428f8d91bb9b461ecd0416a82cbe143269bd22e41afec&recip=19794211TownHall[/url)
-
The nearly 300-page report was approved by all 34 members and will be sent to #SharterJoe.
He ain't gonna like it.
Upshot:
- No position on court-packing. The "commission" was just as divided as the rest of the country.
- Term limits - Congress would need to get its head out of its ass and determine unintended consequences should it gravitate toward implementing same. In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (My characterization through the double-speak, though YMMV...)
(https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/12/08/supreme-court-commission-n2600306?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=67b03d566e10566cd45428f8d91bb9b461ecd0416a82cbe143269bd22e41afec&recip=19794211TownHall[/url)
On the other hand. Congress can just go ahead and do what they want regardless of the commission says.
This is a power play, and the commission was just for show.
I expect they will attempt to pack the courts anyways.