On today’s BradCast: President Biden has, thankfully, edged toward the left on a number of things during his candidacy and Presidency to date. Reforming the GOP’s stolen and packed U.S. Supreme Court, however, at least for now, does not appear to be one of those things. At least if the findings of his blue ribbon Commission of academics studying potential reforms is any indication.
But first up today, several quick updates on a number of stories we’ve been covering of late…
- On Tuesday night, shortly after we got off air, the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Trump-incited January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol voted unanimously to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to answer their subpoena for documents and testimony. A vote on the resolution by the full House is scheduled for Thursday and, if adopted (as expected), a referral for criminal prosecution will be sent to the DoJ. Bannon could face as much as a year in prison. But it was remarks by Committee member Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) before Tuesday’s vote that jumped out: “Mr. Bannon’s and Mr. Trump’s privilege arguments do appear to reveal one thing. They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6, and this Committee will get to the bottom of that.” If I was Trump, I’d take Cheney at her word. Bannon’s future could also be Trump’s.
- There was additional encouraging news from Congress on Tuesday night, as outlets are reporting that obstructionist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are now in direct talks on Biden’s Build Back Better Act and that they hope to reach a deal on a path forward for the once-and-hopefully-still transformative social safety net and climate change bill by week’s end. Manchin, as we discussed on yesterday’s show, has apparently already gutted the legislation’s central climate change provision, and is sure to force the removal of many other wildly popular provisions before all is said and done. But negotiation, in theory, means progress. And progress moving toward passage of the Biden agenda is better than the stalemate of recent weeks. One Senator quoted by The Hill describes the news as a “breakthrough”. We’ll see.
- And, in one other Congressional story today with the tiniest ray of sunshine attached to it, Republican Senators on Wednesday once again filibustered to prevent passage of the Manchin-approved Freedom to Vote Act, a transformative elections and voting rights bill that is desperately needed to counteract the anti-democracy and voter suppression laws being adopted by state Republicans around the nation in advance of 2022 and 2024. It’s the third time Republicans have blocked Democrats’ attempt to move to debate on their voting rights bill. The ray of sunshine here is that Sen. Angus King (I-ME), one of the other holdouts against the filibuster reform that is needed to pass the Act with a simple majority, now says he has “concluded that democracy itself is more important than any Senate rule.” Let’s see if Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) get the message any time soon enough to reform the filibuster to pass legislation in hopes of actually saving democracy from the rising Authoritarian Front (GOP).
Then, we’re joined by the great MARK JOSEPH STERN, Slate’s ace legal reporter and U.S. Supreme Court expert, to discuss the draft report issued late last week by President Biden’s blue ribbon panel of academics — with remarkably little coverage by the corporate media — on potential reforms for SCOTUS following its years-long bastardization and theft by the Republican Party.
The bipartisan Commission, created by the President in April with a mandate to study potential reforms for six months before issuing a report but not to offer formal recommendations, for some reason). They were tasked with studying the pros and cons of possible changes such as expanding the number of seats on the high court and/or the creation of term limits for Justices. The panel was comprised of 36 academics and Courts experts who, according to Stern, included “a lot of conservatives” with a number of “so-called liberals” who were “mostly moderates and institutional liberals who have a vested interest in a Supreme Court that looks favorably upon them. If you survey it all together, you see what is basically a faculty meeting of moderates and conservatives, with a few token liberals, none of whom were happy with this draft report. None of which is a recipe for any kind of real, meaningful reform.”
“Notably,” Stern observes, “not a single person added to the Commission had ever endorsed serious Court reform in the past, [while] there were many people who had said that they opposed Court expansion. So in some ways, this Commission was maybe rigged from the start.”
While the deck was stacked against Court expansion, the idea of term limits didn’t fair all that much better, according to Stern, who cites an obsession by the panel’s members with what other nations might learn from a partisan restructuring of the U.S. Supreme Court. That said, as Stern notes, “we are the only country in the world that gives lifetime tenure to our judges and justices. It is obviously a huge mistake. But the committee comes from the perspective that it is basically a great idea and anyone who criticizes it bears a heavy, heavy burden of proving that it would make things better.”
He charges that the panel appeared to be essentially “governing out of fear” and that its draft report “projects the worst possible outcome and says, ‘We think this is what’s going to happen so we shouldn’t even risk it.'”
While the Commission’s draft argues that America must be mindful that we are “a leader to the rest of the world,” Stern notes, “this report does not even begin to grapple with the fact that no other country, except arguably India, gives its high court nearly as much power as we do. No European nation gives its high court the unfettered ability to veto all legislation. No other nation – not Israel, not Chile or Argentina, not Mexico, not Canada — none of them allow the court to simply smack down any kind of legislative action that it deems to be violative of the Constitution. That’s not how judicial review works anywhere else.”
“If these scholars took a look around,” he argues, “they would realize that other countries have decided our system doesn’t work too well, that they want to do something different. I think there’s a lot of merit to that, and I find it very disappointing that they don’t even grapple with that.”
Of course, he has many more observations, including on what appears to be a “one-way ratchet” where the panel cites public opinion polls as a reason to oppose Court expansion, while ignoring the “overwhelming” public polling from across the entire political spectrum favoring term limits and opposing lifetime appointments for U.S. judges and justices. “Giving anyone that much power for so long is just objectively crazy.” The draft report also includes a number of flat-out lies and tries to “lay equal blame at the feet of both parties” for the crisis of public confidence, unprecedented in modern times, now befalling SCOTUS. Stern hopes that some of the Commission’s liberals, such as the NAACP’s Sherilyn Ifill, may correct the record before their final report is issued and used by Republicans for eternity to claim that “Even Joe Biden’s court commission opposes term limits!”
Finally, in our closing few minutes, Stern explains the pathetic roller coaster legal rulings that have allowed Texas’ new anti-abortion law, S.B.8, to stay in place for now, despite its clear violation of decades of ‘Roe v. Wade’s legal precedent, and the terrifying ease with which the GOP’s stolen and packed Supreme Court is preparing to overturn that and other long-settled precedents.
“You should be terrified,” he warns. “We should all be terrified. And we should all be aware that if we choose not to expand the Court, that we are going to have to live with this current conservative super-majority for years, if not decades.”
I had to write to tell the estimable Mark Joseph Stern to take anything Niko Bowie says with a pound of salt. He might be right about things sometimes; after all, he’s clearly very intelligent. But what we have seen of him in My Less and Less Fair City is that he is a pompous, bullying demagogue who is really fond of the sound of his own voice, especially when it’s cloaking defending the rights of rich white men to loot and pillage our community in the language of fighting historic racism, all dressed up in a truly artfully constructed juxtaposition of unrelated facts intended to create a false impression of what the real history was. The main fun was seeing how many people saw right through him. In other words, don’t take anything he says at face value.