Two Conservative members resigned from the bipartisan panel President BidenJoe Biden McAuliffe Holds Slim Lead Over Youngkin in Fox News Poll Biden Signs Bill to Raise Debt Ceiling On The Money – Progressives Are Playing Hard on Biden’s Budget Plan MORE gathered to study proposals for reform of the Supreme Court.
Departures on Friday came from University of Virginia law professor Caleb Nelson, a former court clerk Clarence thomasClarence ThomasSotomayor Says Recent Changes Made Because Male Judges Interrupted Female Colleagues Why Latinos Need Supreme Court Reform ESPN Removes Sage Steele From Programming After Controversial Remarks MORE, and Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, a former senior official in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush.
Nelson confirmed to The Hill that he had resigned, adding that “it was an honor for me to be on the Commission”. Goldsmith did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The White House expressed appreciation for the professors’ five-month tenure on the commission, but did not provide an explanation for the departures.
“These two commissioners have chosen to end their involvement,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement. “We respect their decision and very much appreciate the important contributions they have made over the past 5 months in terms of preparing for these deliberations.”
The resignations came a day after the commission released preliminary findings that assessed the pros and cons of several court reform proposals.
While the committee took no position on potential measures, the draft report warned of the risks associated with adding judges to the bench, a measure favored by some Liberals.
When the committee met on Friday, several liberal members criticized the draft discussion papers on its handling of the proposed court extension, according to excerpts from the meeting released by the Progressive Advocacy Group for Court Reform. , Demand Justice.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said the draft report “creates the impression that while the expansion of the tribunal is a theoretical possibility, the arguments for it are overwhelmed by the arguments against.”
“I think a report that pours cold water on the only clearly legitimate exercise of congressional power to address a major jurisprudential trend … would be a report I would have a hard time signing off on,” Tribe said, according to excerpts from what he said.
Reform debate comes amid a recent drop in the court’s approval rating from the Conservative majority 6-3 and the start of a successful term in which judges will hear a direct challenge to the landmark ruling 1973 in Roe v. Wade and a gun law. case which could lead to the enlargement of the Second Amendment.
The court has faced backlash for several controversial decisions recently made in its emergency proceedings, or so-called shadow case, and an explosive term that has the potential to dramatically change American life could amplify calls from the left to the overhaul of the High Court.