Commission says "risks of court expansion are considerable" and "would be perceived by many as a partisan maneuver"
Members of the commission "are divided on whether court expansion would be wise."
Commission seems much more into the idea of term limits or something similar that would allow appointments to be staggered, but the problem is that it is unclear if Congress has the power to do that. The commission is divided on that point.
The White House kept saying these were just "discussion materials" but these docs are pretty sour on expanding the court/court packing (pick your team) and much more positive about term limits
First Liberty sends release headlined "SCOTUS Commission Reveals How They Want to Change the U.S. Supreme Court to Satisfy Far-Left Progressives" which doesn't quite track what is in the report, which progressives are already criticizing
for example, Demand Justice calls it "paralysis by analysis" and "not even close to being worth the wait."
Curious: This morning the Supreme Court website had a dropdown menu option called “financial disclosure reports” (although nothing to see when you click on it). Now it’s gone
The court has never posted the justices’ financial reports. If you want to see them you have to get copies by applying to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
(h/t @nateraymond for spotting the phantom menu option)
Supreme Court announces action on pending appeals at 9:30, including potentially some big ones left over from last week
Supreme Court then hears oral arguments in an abortion case that's not really about abortion on whether Kentucky AG can intervene to defend an abortion restriction struck down by lower courts
After a car chase, cop opened fire when suspect put stopped car in reverse. Officer “fired 11 shots through the back windshield and side windows as the car passed near him. Then he changed magazines and fired another 10 shots.” Driver was killed and passengers injured. QI granted
Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in person this fall — press release
Court will not allow public in the courtroom but justices, court personnel, lawyers and credentialed journalists will be allowed in. The gamechanger though is that live audio will continue
Supreme Court makes clear this development is, at the moment, for Oct, Nov and Dec arguments only
At a presidential debate in 2016, candidate Trump said that if he got the chance to appoint 2-3 Supreme Court justices, Roe v Wade would “automatically” be overturned. His bold prediction could soon turn out to be correct: reut.rs/3DMAEO7
Trump filled Scalia’s seat first but that didn’t change the balance of the court. Justice Kennedy’s retirement in 2018 was really the gamechanger as Kennedy had previously voted in favor of abortion rights. Now, with Kavanaugh in board, Roe was definitely under threat
Anti-abortion activists had a shock in 2020 when Roberts sided with liberals to strike down a Louisiana restriction (although that may have been a one-off). But even Roberts’ vote doesn’t matter any more because Ginsburg was replaced by Barrett creating the 6-3 majority
There seems to be this received wisdom that somehow the "news media" has downplayed the prospect of abortion rights being curbed by the Supreme Court. Where is the evidence of that?
Pretty much everyone involved in abortion litigation has been openly discussing how Roe v. Wade is on the line ever since Justice Kennedy retired and pretty sure every SCOTUS reporter has reported on it as such
Here's a story *from the day Kennedy announced his retirement*