President Biden’s Supreme Court commission heard Tuesday from a group of lawyers who practice before the justices and who did not have a favorable response to progressive proposals to pack the court. Maureen Mahoney, co-chair of the Supreme Court Practitioners’ Committee, told the panel in its third public meeting they oppose moves to enlarge the court.
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court met on July 20 for its second public meeting, hearing from 27 witnesses about everything from the court’s
Constitutional amendments gave women the right to vote and limited presidents to two terms in office. Now we need a constitutional amendment to preserve the independence of the Supreme Court.
Many court watchers are still paying attention only to how liberal or conservative the justices are. But there’s another factor at work.
Last summer, I wrote, “The Supreme Court has never been more protective of religious freedom in its history.” This term, the court’s “pro-religion” streak has continued — and then some.
In April, President Joe Biden announced a new Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The group would be composed of legal scholars and activists and would "provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform," according to a statement released by the White House.
Editor’s note: The Daily Signal’s audience appears flabbergasted that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a florist in Washington state who declined
But the decision’s ultimate consequences remain to be seen.
Sitting in their air-conditioned offices with stewards who serve coffee and tea on request, a majority of our Supreme Court justices have come to an awful decision. They ordered an essential class of workers into slave-like isolation—unseen, unheard and unprotected—as they toil in scorching heat harvesting crops.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told CNN in a new interview that he is undecided on retirement. The 83-year-old justice said "no" when CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic