[ad_1]
A constitutional law expert noted that the Supreme Court, with its recent rulings, could send a message to supporters of “packaging” or enacting other changes at the High Court.
“This week, the Supreme Court continued to disappoint Democrats and congressional activists with a long line of embarrassing unanimous, non-ideological decisions,” Jonathan Turley, professor of law and constitutional scholar at George Washington University, wrote on his website. “After all, the court is supposed to be… ‘out of whack’ because of its irreconcilable ideological divisions. Indeed, the tribunal would be so divided so dysfunctionally that many, including Democratic leaders, have called for sweeping changes, ranging from filling the tribunal with new judges to changing its voting rules or even creating. an alternative court.
Turley noted that in the court’s recent decision in Borden v. United States Liberal Judge Elena Kagan wrote an opinion for Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch with the assent of Judge Clarence Thomas, who is considered by many to be the most conservative judge on the court. In this case, two Conservatives and three Liberals agreed to limit the scope of a violent crime under the Criminal Law on Armed Careers.
Last week the court ruling on Van Buren v. United States was attributed by Breyer to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, considered a Conservative, who wrote for Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh or Three Liberals and Three Conservatives, Turley said.
And the most recent rulings follow a “litany of unanimous decisions” from the tribunal this year, Turley said, adding that they “apparently sent a message on when to release his opinions.”
“Judges do not rule on cases to send messages to Congress, but they control which cases are accepted and when those decisions are rendered,” he wrote. “It’s hard not to view the past few weeks as some sort of judicial ‘harassment’ to continued appeals to court packing. While we expect more ideological splits in a few cases to come, these cases reaffirm that they are not as rigid or “hopelessly divided” as Democratic leaders and other critics have suggested. “
When Coney Barrett was appointed by former President Donald Trump last year, some Congressional Democrats suggested that with the move they would have no choice but to ‘fold’ or expand the Supreme Court. to 15 judges. There is no law that says the tribunal should only be nine judges, the current number, but that number has not been touched since the mid-1800s.
Breyer, a member of the liberal wing of the court, himself argued in April that racing the court would be an attempt to politicize the institution.
“Structural change motivated by the perception of political influence can only fuel that perception, further eroding that trust,” he said of the proposals.
The White House, meanwhile, set up a commission several months ago dedicated to assessing possible changes to the Supreme Court, including extension or term limits for judges, according to a decree signed by the president. Joe Biden.
The Supreme Court has yet to respond to a request for comment.
[ad_2]
picture credit