Court reform

Long before the Supreme Court rescinded abortion rights, gun control and environmental regulations, President Joe Biden commissioned a body of academics and judicial experts to study the structure and composition of the nation’s high court.

The recommendations issued by that bipartisan commission were moderate in scope, focusing on matters of transparency and ethics. Ultimately, they were brushed aside, ignored by a president largely resistant to large-scale reforms.

[...]

Former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who served on Biden’s commission, said in an interview that the court’s striking down of Roe v. Wade, a New York law that restricted open carry, and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions vindicated her belief that more seats should be added to the nine-member body.

[...]

“It really is a set of decisions that they did only because they can. And that is an exercise of pure power, not legal reasoning.”

[...]

When Gertner initially joined the administration’s commission, her reverence for the high court made her resistant to larger changes like expansion. Instead she believed modest structural reforms, like term limits, would be useful. That changed after she heard testimony from experts who believed that seats should be added to the court. While Gertner eventually came around to the idea, others on the commission didn’t. Their final report included endorsements for new codes of ethics and more court transparency. It steered clear of endorsing topics like expansion and term limits.

[...]

A growing number of voices on the left now say the Biden administration has deeply underappreciated the problems presented by the conservative court — not just as a matter of jurisprudence but as an issue of democratic governance itself.

[...]

“The president has blasted the court’s decision in Dobbs attacking Americans’ most personal rights as ‘extremist,’ ‘outrageous,’ and ‘awful’ and taken swift action while warning against the national abortion ban congressional Republicans are seeking,” White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said, noting Biden also has criticized the high court’s decisions on gun control and environmental regulation.

[...]

White House aides acknowledge that Biden’s belief in the need for enduring institutions comes at the cost of embracing more aggressive reforms. And they don’t imagine him changing, having both chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and run on a platform that was about bipartisanship, not a revolution. Aides say Biden also doesn’t want to start a different type of tit for tat with Republicans that leads to each side adding more seats.

[...]

“The president is being straight with the public that the choice is between legislation to protect the most deeply personal constitutional freedoms or a national ban that further deprives Americans of their freedoms,” a Biden ally said. “[A]dding justices — which even the strongest advocates for can’t ballpark the support level of in Congress — would distract from the only path that is essential to restoring Roe, which is congressional action once we have enough votes. He’s focused on delivering results in real life — not the Twitterverse.”

[...]

“Why does Joe Biden consider it his job to keep the public having confidence in a court that is completely working to thwart his agenda?” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of court reform group, Demand Justice. “He’s not ready to endorse it. [But] why demotivate his people that are passionate and upset at that moment? Why not leave a little fear in the minds of the Republican justices on the court about what he might support once he gets into office? Why not put a little fear into Mitch McConnell about what he might be for?”

  Politico

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  A good proposal for court reform vis-a-vis expansion.