Biden's Supreme Court Commission 'Takes No Position' on Court Packing
“There is profound disagreement over whether Court expansion at this moment in time would be wise.”

Earlier this year, President Joe Biden announced the creation of a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. Made up of legal scholars and activists, its purpose was to "provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform," according to a statement released by the White House.
The commission's final report was released last week. Its contents are likely to come as a disappointment to those progressive activists who were hoping that the commission would support their campaign urging Biden to pack the Supreme Court with new justices in order to create a liberal supermajority on the bench.
"Although there is widespread agreement among legal scholars that Congress has the constitutional authority to expand the Court's size," the report states, "there is profound disagreement over whether Court expansion at this moment in time would be wise. We do not seek to evaluate or judge the weight of any of these arguments, and the Commission takes no position on the wisdom of expansion."
To say there is profound disagreement about the wisdom of court packing is to put it mildly. No less than Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court's longest-serving Democratic appointee, has denounced the court packers for waging a misguided campaign that threatens both the independence of the judicial branch and even liberalism itself.
To be sure, not all liberals see things Breyer's way. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and retired federal judge Nancy Gertner, who were both members of the Biden SCOTUS commission, took to The Washington Post immediately after the report was released to trumpet their support for court packing. "Hand-wringing over the court's legitimacy misses a larger issue: the legitimacy of what our union is becoming," they write. "To us, that spells a compelling need to signal that all is not well with the court, and that even if expanding it to combat what it has become would temporarily shake its authority, that risk is worth taking."
"Judicial independence is too important to sacrifice for a majority's temporary political advantage," countered Princeton professor Keith Whittington, who also served on the Biden SCOTUS commission. "If a temporary partisan majority added three new justices to the Supreme Court today," Whittington wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "it had better expect that the opposition party will do the same the next time it holds power. The court could easily become a political plaything of political majorities rather than a functional independent branch of government."
Whittington's arguments might strike a chord with the president, since they echo statements made by Biden himself. Court packing is a "live ball" among many Democratic activists, Biden conceded during his 2020 presidential campaign. But he also added that "the last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just another political football, whoever's got the most votes gets whatever they want."
Time will tell if the Tribes and Gertners of the legal world are able to change Biden's mind about that.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why not pack the court with a million judges. That use mail in ballots to vote.
Why not a giant Zoom call with every law school professor in the country to make the decision? That should be an unbiased group of legal experts....
Why not? The number of judges is not the problem with 'packing'. The problem is the means/motivation for how the number changes. The obsession about the number is why we have fixed the House at 435 for over a century and have turned the US from the most representative republic in the world to the least representative in the world. With zero interest in ever changing that.
Large groups make poor group decisions. Eight (plus one) is enough.
>>Large groups make poor group decisions.
let's chase that guy with the AR-15!!
So what is the magic evidence of 'good decision-making' about 'eight plus one' as decided upon by the 41st Congress in 1869?
And since there is likely only one justice who will be replaced (via death at least) in the next 10 or so years - what is the magic about a SC that becomes ossified because modern partisan politicians have chosen to confirm new justices at an age where they will have 30 YEARS in office?
Fewer bureaucrats means less bureaucracy. It also means less interviews for MSM to have to manipulate to meet their agenda. So a win for libertarians and a win for progressives.
True, the large group issue. But there is also a huge mismatch between the number of cases asking for SCOTUS review and the number they can accept. A reasonable thing to talk about is whether every SCOTUS case needs to be heard by all the Justices. Perhaps the SCOTUS could operate like the circuit courts, where cases are heard by a subset (unless someone requests otherwise).
I hope that's something the commission considered. I don't know if it's a good idea or not but it seems worth talking about.
No it doesn’t.
Not every case is heard because not every case should be heard. 1. It simply isn’t possible to escalate the review of every appeal in federal court to SCOTUS. 2. Most cases that lose appeal, should probably not ever have even gone to court in the first place because it was a massive waste of everyone’s time and money from the start. Many cases takes years to finish, and that’s before ever even reaching the federal circuit, much less the year+ process in that court before one could even appeal to SCOTUS.
Courts aren’t infallible by any stretch, but to say that every appeal should be heard by SCOTUS is absurd. Even federal circuit courts should be able to turn down cases.
I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible ADt economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE....... Click Here<b
Keep rotating judges until we get the rulings we want!
#justice
It baffles me you seem to think the Supreme Court should be a representative branch. Has commie-education really failed that BAD!?
That would be commie education succeeding in this case
Good point.. 🙂
Profound disagreement, eh?
So some people actually thought it was a good idea?
What if Biden adds 4 justices to make it 7-6 Blue instead of 6-3 Red?
Then DeSantis wins in 2024 and adds 2 more justices to make it 8-7 Red.
Pretty soon you need RFK stadium to hear cases.
This could up in debt ceiling territory.
The problem is Republicans nominate judges, democrats nominate activists
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bigots-bloggers-liars-the-top-ten-worst-judges-trump-has-put-on-the-bench
POLITIFACTSSS55!!1!!!!!
The article called the ABA non-partisan. It decries the fact that the judges nominated by Trump were largely white men.
Can't decide whether the author is more racist or partisan.
Since it's Congress that sets the size of the Court, would the likely "red tsunami" that seems to be increasingly inevitable in 2022 be able to just eliminate any newly created seats (if they can get cooperation from enough sane Dems to override the veto in exchange for promising not to just add another 6 "conservative" justices after 2024)?
Pretty dumb. Just do it. It's clear Republicans will use whatever bullshit rationalization they want to only confirm ones nominated by a Republican. You're just doing yourself a disservice by not fighting fire with fire.
I’m not surprised you’re that shortsighted spazzberry.
The better long-term view is that bigotry, backwardness, and superstition will sink the Republican Party and that better Americans need not worry much about what the Republican Party might do years from now. There are just not enough half-educated bigots and superstitious, insular slack-jaws left in America to get much done, and the number of vestigial clingers diminishes each day as the obituaries are published.
That sounds like a perfectly sound and rational strategy.
Here’s hoping the left goes with your plan.
Bigoted asshole's been pasting that for years; too fucking stupid to type anything new.
Some might even say that such a long term view (or a version of it) is as applicable to the left. Don't fool yourself into thinking that there's any version of professional politicain who doesn't see "half-educated bigots" and "insular slack-jaws" as their primary constituency.
Maxine Waters has been in elected office since MTG was in diapers, and has been opting out of critical thought for almost every working day of that stretch. Failing to deliver enough "red meat to the base" is the kind of thing that'll get someone taken down in the primaries, and in gerrymandered districts that's the only time a huge portion of Congress is actually vulnerable.
Totally, Dems have been completely fair and above board when it comes to the Supreme Court and the nomination process. It's always those dastardly Republicans screwing everything up.
Pouncing, if you will.
Did they investigate the option of reducing the number to zero?
When did Republicans falsely accuse a Dem SCOTUS nominee of rape?
They should next time. Use the Dems' playbook against them.
Or replacing the court with an app? Or maybe a Magic 8 Ball?
Trial by combat.
Two non-birthing persons enter, one non-birthing person leaves.
Would mtf trans women be allowed to combat cis women?
They have to fight the Gorn.
Someone had designed an advanced Artificial Intelligence system that could read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and every Supreme Court decision and dissent since the Founding, and instantly spit out a valid decision on any new case.
But it melted down from being unable to resolve the logical contradictions, like when Capt. Kirk outsmarted the Ultimate Computer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Computer
It was penaltax that broke it, wasn’t it?
Shit was broke way before then.
We still have Buck v Bell, FFS.
Let's be precise with our terminology.
"Court packing" is when a judge retires or dies, and a Republican President fills the vacancy. So obviously Drumpf was packing the courts for years.
However when a Democratic President expands the Supreme Court by 4+ seats and immediately fills them, that's actually un-packing the court. Let's hope Biden gets it done.
#LibertariansForBiden
#LibertariansFor4MoreRBGs
"Court packing" is when a judge retires or dies, and a Republican President fills the vacancy.
Lifetime appointments are a biased construct generated by the interpretation of cis-living individuals. Justices should be able to continue to affirm/dissent after transitioning to undead as per the FF's intention in The Constitution. No new appointments necessary. Bowf Sidez!
RBG’s dying wish.
So why use the 9 latest living appointees? Choose the 9 greatest Justices from throughout history, and have a computer predict how they would rule on each case. No more politicized appointments.
No, that's not what I think people mean by "court packing". They're thinking more along the lines of what FDR threatened, to add enough new justices to ensure your party has a dependable majority.
Today I think the balance is viewed as 6-3 (or is it 5-4?). If Biden was court packing, he'd add four new seats to make it 7-6. If the GOP wins in '24, they'd turn around and immediately add two more to make it 8-7, and it could escalate from there.
That's the disaster scenario I'd like to avoid.
Some analysts have it as 3-3-3 with a bit of a "libertarian" gooey middle.
Leftists (at least the ones I know) tend to consider all libertarians to be arch-right (or sometimes alt-right), but somehow also don't see themselves as having anything like statist leanings. Most likely this is the reason they consider anti-statists to all be "right wing"; when you equate accountability with oppression, it's not a big jump to see a kind of "freedom" in having most of your choices made for you (except for choosing about one particular issue, that is).
"Stand back, baby, I don't know how big the Supreme Court's gonna get!"
Better people can predict this, because expectations that Republicans will call the shots in America over the medium to long term are a Rapture-level fantasy.
The raptures were the scariest part of Jurassic Park.
Lol.
Clever girl...
I sincerely hope this prediction ages better than your prediction of getting the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th Supreme Court justices within 6 months of Biden's inauguration.
#SlightlyBehindSchedule
Ouch.
"Better people can predict this,..."
This bigoted asshole hopes someone here is as stupid as he is and believes he has any idea of what 'better people' can predict.
Fuck off and die, shit pile.
Before you predict the future, you might want to check which side is having more kids.
The Mexicans.
To be sure...
this isn't a Robby piece.
In response to this report, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg said, "Oh, COURT packing...", and then went back on parental leave.
Hopefully, the dumb SOB stays on leave. Less opportunity to fuck things up if he ain't in the office.
How long until Phil follows along behind the NY Gov and brings back mandates?
I give it a week. Just in time for Christmas.
Wait wait wait I was told that this commission was just an intellectual pretext for the real decision to pack the court. You mean that wasn't the case? Huh.
how many chickens that haven't hatched do you have, exactly?
Perhaps that was the pretext in a "heat of the moment" way and then the commission looked at the actual political climate and decided that expanding the court was a bad idea at this time?
Remember in early 2001 how new Senator Clinton was going to
reform the Electoral College? That trial balloon didn't fly so she turned to other depredations.
She foresaw the Blue Wall, no doubt.
Simpson-Bowles says hi.
Actually, the whole point of the commission was to operate as a deflective tool and get an extremely controversial political topic away from Biden and other Democrats. It was brilliant.
That is what I thought as well. It was an excuse for Biden to punt on the issue.
I thought it was pretty well common knowledge that "Blue Ribbon Commissions" are where policies that administrations wish to avoid go to die.
Yeah.
They need the “we need to look like we’re doing something” wing of government to function.
able to change Biden's mind
Assumes a fact not in evidence.
Will pontificate for pudding.
Yes. Yes. The Court doesn’t confirm everything you (Democrats) want and deny everything you don’t, so it needs to be ideologically purified.
Odd that a commission on reforming the SCOTUS would take a pass on the only reform anyone cares about.
I'll have to read their report to see what reforms they _were_ willing to take a stand on.
So... split on court packing, united in packing their report with opinions?
There is nothing sacred about 9 justices, however their is something sinister with the notion of packing the court because you disagree with the makeup of the court that was a result of elections.
The double standard is appalling and while I have no love of the Republican party and see their many flaws, the Democrat party is inherently evil down to the core. Not to confuse the Democrat party with people who tend to vote for Democrat candidates.
I firmly believe that the majority of people do not have much invested in either the Democrat or Republican parties, but rather tend to vote out of habit or tradition.
There are increasing numbers of independent minded people who have left the Democrat or Republican parties. There needs to be many more to make a difference. We need collectively to wake up and realize that we are being manipulated by the Democrat or Republican parties, by the corporate media.
For all the Ls who say Ds and Rs are the same, this better be your wake-up call. Everyone is corrupt to some degree, but Rs would never stoop this low. Ds know they have to weaponize the courts to enact their agenda. The fact that they want to use un-elected, unresponsive bureaucracy as their primary means of enforcement should scare you even more.
Ah. No true Scotsman alternating with tu quoque and ad hominem. Original thinking there...
Democrats; Those Nazi's trying desperately to tear the USA up completely. Nothing scares them more than a Supreme Court that might hold that last 2% of the U.S. Constitution up against [WE] mob democratic tyranny.
If politicians didn't want to turn courts into political footballs, they would simply refrain from talking about judicial decisions in political terms. Biden is at least smart enough to know that this is a bad idea, though it seems unclear if he see's it as bad for political or practical reasons.
Funny how Biden thought it was such a "bad idea" he created a commission specifically to see if he could find an excuse to do it.
FDR tried the same thing in 1936, and go the intended result. Instead of Herbert Hoover appointee Roberts taking retirement, alarmed Republican Hughes convinced him to vote the way FDR wanted and not shake the GOP boat. This is the reverse of how libertarian spoiler votes change bad laws. When 9% voted for communism in 1892, the income tax won. When George Wallace's 13% meant 46 electoral votes, Republicans joined the Klan, built bonfires of Beatles albums, and kicked in people's doors without knocking.
The Republican National Socialist Supreme Court backed away from bringing back Comstock laws providing a decade on a chain gang for explaining birth control. Newsom The Unwanted can now nullify the Second Amendment while Texas voters unseat the NSTAP. Biden's court-packing gambit worked.
Its "court packing" if they're partisan or clearly ideological judges. If there was a way to add non-partisan, independent minded judges then it wouldn't be.