Biden-Harris on Supreme Court Term Limits
An attack on the independence of the federal judiciary.
An attack on the independence of the federal judiciary.
The less of our lives we allow to be put to a vote, the better.
"Think long and hard," Breyer warns would-be court packers, "before embodying those changes in law."
The Duke law professor posts an important and insightful article on this subject.
I've heard that breaking constitutional norms is a bad thing
“There is profound disagreement over whether Court expansion at this moment in time would be wise.”
The report doesn't endorse court-packing or term limits. But it's generally more favorable to the latter than the former. It also provides valuable overview of a wide range of SCOTUS-related issues.
The preliminary reports are generally negative on court-packing, but favorable to term limits.
It could make the Court more vulnerable to political attack and to measures such as court-packing. But the vulnerability might not be great - or last long.
It's a genuinely bipartisan and cross-ideological group. And one that isn't good news for advocates of court-packing.
In this he echoes a number of other liberals, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The panelists included Joshua Braver (University of Wisconsin), Tom Jipping (Heritage Foundation), and myself.
What we know of the planned commission's membership makes it unlikely it will recommend court-packing. But that doesn't mean the issue will simply go away.
It is easy for originalists to reject challenges to court-packing; but the non-originalist arguments should be spelled out
The implications of this move are far from clear. But it could well be a step to avoid court-packing, rather than promote it.
In a preview of an interview that will air Sunday, Biden says he'd pick "Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives" to serve on the body, which would make broad recommendations for reforming federal courts.
Republican senators should leap at this opportunity - though, sadly, I doubt they will.
Exactly one year ago, Biden gave a clear and direct answer to this question. Tonight, he completely fumbled his response.
Although Democrats think the composition of the Supreme Court is a big election issue, their nominee won’t say what he plans to do about it.
Biden's refusal to address court packing in the first presidential debate reflects his lack of concrete positions.
The prospects are far from ideal. But it is still potentially feasible.
Simply put: Republicans agree not to vote on a replacement for Ginsburg until January; Democrats agree not to pack the Court.
When it comes to the Supreme Court, the answer is clearly "no." Things are less clear when it comes to the lower federal courts.
Its approval rating - 58 percent - is at its highest level since 2009, far outstripping the other two branches of government. That doesn't prove the justices are doing a good job, but will make it harder to pursue court-packing or other attacks on the Court.
Some progressive activist groups are trying to resuscitate the idea. Whether they succeed remains to be seen.
It may be better only in so far as it is much more likely to get invalidated by the courts.
The five Democrats warn that the Court may have to be "restructured" if it keeps making decisions they don't like.
Two prominent liberal constitutional law scholars warn against the dangers of court-packing.
There is growing support for packing the Supreme Court among liberal Democrats, including some presidential candidates. It's a terrible idea that would severely damage the institution of judicial review, if ever implemented. Thoughtful liberals would do well to reject it.
Jim Lindgren proposes a constitutional amendment banning court-packing. I'm all for it. But it can only pass if liberal Democrats get some reciprocal concession to support it.
Current liberal court-packing proposals are dangerously misguided - and for much the same reasons as last year's conservative court-packing plan.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks