Biden’s Supreme Court commission shows interest in term limits

The most complete look yet at the ongoing work of President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court commission showed its continuing interest in imposing terms limits on justices, while also noting “profound disagreement among commissioners” over whether court expansion would be wise.

Before a public meeting Friday, the bipartisan panel of legal experts released Thursday a set of “discussion materials” that amount to draft chapters for its final report to Biden next month.

Their release is the latest development in the complex and politically sensitive debate over whether to seek fundamental changes to the Supreme Court. That debate has intensified since Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s nominee to the court in 2016 and erupted even more fully after President Donald

Trump succeeded in placing three justices on the court, entrenching a 6-3 conservative majority even though Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections.

Against that backdrop, some liberals began pushing Democrats to support Congress expanding the number of justices on the court so that a Democratic president could make a flurry of appointments to rebalance it ideologically.

In October 2020, during the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, Biden avoided taking a clear stand by saying he would set up a panel to study judicial reform issues.

Biden’s charge to the panel was to offer analysis but not recommendations, and the group is taking no position on the various ideas it is analyzing.

It is not clear what steps, if any, Biden might take once he receives the commission’s final report next month, even as the court considers blockbuster cases that have many progressives on edge, including a challenge to the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 by Roe vs. Wade.

Any substantial change to the court would require an act of Congress or a constitutional amendment.

The materials released Thursday reflected input from a meeting last month, which was the first time that the majority of the commissioners had seen earlier drafts produced by smaller groups.

The materials suggest that although both ideas have their supporters and detractors, expanding the court is the far more contentious of the two.

By contrast, the discussion materials also stress that the idea of staggered, 18-year terms — with a seat opening every two years — has enjoyed support from liberal and conservative scholars.