Episode 42: Errors of Commission

October 20, 2021

The Biden Commission has released a draft report on “term limits” for the Court; we address the arguments.

Remember “18 reasons for 18 years?”  Well, so did the Biden Commission, and as they reject court packing, they flirt with the 18 year plan.  A few voices are raising in the media and even some on the commission, so we review their arguments and analyze their possible merits.  A big question – can it be implemented by statute, or is a constitutional amendment required?  No surprise that Akhil has a clear opinion on this.  If this happens, you heard it here first – or rather, you read it first back in 2002 when Akhil and his co-author came up with it.

Show Notes:

Akhil Reed Amar, testimony before White House Commission

Professor Amar’s July 20, 2021 testimony, including as an appendix the details of his “18 year” plan, before the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read and/or Download

Op-Ed: Supreme Court Term Limits Won't Solve Anything

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the Fourth Circuit writes in the Washington Post in opposition to the 18 year proposals.

Read and/or Download

Draft Report of the White House Commission on the Supreme Court

The Draft of the President’s Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Biden Commission”), on the subject of so-called Term Limits.

Read and/or Download

Stuart v. Laird (1803)

Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. 299 (1803). The companion case to Marbury from the Marshall Court, on circuit riding.

Read and/or Download