When challenged about stacking the Supreme Court with leftist judges, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson hesitated to provide a clear comment on Tuesday. Brown, who was chosen by President Joe Biden to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, evaded a question regarding court-packing at her Senate confirmation hearing.
Durbin said, “Another issue which has come up to my surprise, and I have spoken with my Republican colleagues about their fascination with it, is the notion of the composition of the Supreme Court, which euphemistically is referred to as court-packing. I have said on the floor, and I will repeat it here, there is exactly one living senator who has effectively changed the size of the Supreme Court.”
“That was the Republican leader, Sen. McConnell, who shrank the court to eight seats for nearly a year in 2016 when he blocked President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. Now, that question on court-packing was posed to Amy Coney Barrett, justice on the court, when she appeared before this committee, she was asked about it. She said, and I quote, Could not opine on it.” he added.
“And on many other policy issues, quote, ‘I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial, because that is inconsistent with the judicial role.’ I do believe we should have rules and traditions and precedents, but we shouldn’t have a separate set of rules for Republican nominees and Democratic nominees.” he stated.
“So, Judge Jackson, if a senator were to ask you today about proposals about changing the current size of the Supreme Court, what would your response be?” he remarked.
Nominee Jackson responded by saying, “Senator, I agree with Justice Barrett and her response to that question when she was asked before this committee. Again, my north star is the consideration of the proper role of a judge in our constitutional scheme. In my view, judges should not be speaking to political issues, and certainly not a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court. So, I agree with Justice Barrett.”
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court decided last year to send its final report to President Joe Biden. The 34-member group conducted a 180-day review of proposed Supreme Court reforms, such as court-packing and term restrictions for justices. The final draft of the 288-page study presented a summary of arguments for and against crucial topics ranging from court-packing to judge term limits.
Notably, the group had “no stance” on court-packing, the liberal notion of adding justices to the Supreme Court. “Given the size and character of the Commission, as well as the complexity of the problems covered,” the report’s summary stated, “individual members of the Commission would have authored the Report with varied emphases and methods.”
“However, the Commission submits this Report today in the opinion that it offers a fair and constructive assessment of the difficult and frequently contentious topics that it was tasked with investigating.”
“No serious individual, in either major political party, recommends court packing as a strategy of reversing unfavorable Supreme Court judgments, whether the case in question is Roe v. Wade or Citizens United,” according to the study. Until recently, scholars may argue that, particularly when compared to other court reform measures, ‘court-packing’ is notably out of bounds. This is part of the judicial independence convention.” The report’s summary noted, “The commission takes no judgment on the veracity or strength of these assertions.”
“Commissioners are deeply divided on these topics, mirroring the larger public discussion.” We give the arguments to fulfill our mission of providing a comprehensive understanding of the current judicial reform discussion.”
“The American public rejects court-packing and any other attempt to undermine the judiciary,” said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and general counsel for First Liberty Institute. Despite the fact that several surveys demonstrate that Americans oppose court-packing, far-left progressives are plainly attempting to extend their political influence under the cover of ‘court reform.'” “Expanding the membership of the United States Supreme Court is nothing more than a clear, partisan strategy to attain simply political goals and wield raw power,” Shackelford remarked.