1. The much-anticipated presidential commission on the Supreme Court is finally here. My initial impression is that it’s very large (36), very progressive (about a 3:1 ratio), and very academic (I count just four members without purely academic appointments)...

2. It’s a group of big minds and big ideas, who are now tasked with analyzing “the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.”...

3. I do hope they spend most of their charge on the first part of that question, because the Court is the most respected government institution other than the military and arguments for restructuring essentially express prog-elite dissatisfaction with its current composition...

4. “Reform” proposals boil down to rearranging deck chairs on ship of state, bc what we’ve seen is the culmination of trends whereby divergent interp theories map onto partisan pref at a time when the parties are more ideologically sorted than any time since at least Civil War...

5. This, at a time when the Court regularly decides major political controversies because the federal government has amassed too much power and Congress has abdicated its policymaking responsibility by punting to the executive branch, which then gets sued...

6. Because of that dynamic, there are no easy or quick solutions to the politicization of judicial confirmations and the toxic cloud that has descended over many constitutional debates. So I look forward to seeing the commission’s work...

7. but am skeptical that any recommendations it produces will manage to be all of nonpartisan, feasible, and legal, and actually improve the Supreme Court. For more on this, see my book Supreme Disorder. https://www.regnery.com/custom/supreme-disorder/