White House Says Biden Would Veto Bill Expanding Federal Judiciary
The White House has stated that President Biden would veto a bill expanding the federal judiciary if it reached his desk. The bill, the Judiciary Act of 2023, would add 13 new judgeships to the federal district courts and four new judgeships to the federal appellate courts. The bill has been passed by the House of Representatives but has not yet been taken up by the Senate.
The White House’s statement of opposition to the bill is a departure from the position taken by the Biden administration in the past. In 2021, the Justice Department supported a similar bill that would have added 13 new judgeships to the federal district courts. However, the Biden administration has since changed its position, arguing that the current number of judges is sufficient to handle the caseload.
Arguments in Favor of Expanding the Federal Judiciary
Proponents of expanding the federal judiciary argue that the current number of judges is insufficient to handle the caseload. They point to the fact that the number of federal cases has increased by more than 50% in the past 20 years, while the number of judges has remained the same. This has led to longer delays in getting cases to trial and has made it more difficult for people to access the courts.
Proponents of expansion also argue that a more diverse judiciary would be better able to represent the American people. The current federal judiciary is predominantly white and male. Expanding the judiciary would allow for the appointment of more judges from different backgrounds, including women, people of color, and LGBTQ people.
Arguments Against Expanding the Federal Judiciary
Opponents of expanding the federal judiciary argue that the current number of judges is sufficient to handle the caseload. They point to the fact that the federal courts have a backlog of cases, but this backlog is due to a number of factors, including the complexity of the cases and the lack of resources for the courts.
Opponents of expansion also argue that a more diverse judiciary would not necessarily be better able to represent the American people. They point to the fact that many judges are appointed from a small pool of lawyers who have experience in the federal courts. This means that the judiciary is already somewhat diverse, even if it is not as diverse as the general population.
Conclusion
The debate over expanding the federal judiciary is a complex one with no easy answers. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to expand the judiciary is a political one that will be made by Congress and the President.
If the Judiciary Act of 2023 is passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Biden, it would be a significant change to the federal judiciary. It would add 13 new judgeships to the federal district courts and four new judgeships to the federal appellate courts. This would be the largest expansion of the federal judiciary in decades.
The expansion of the federal judiciary would have a number of potential benefits. It would reduce the backlog of cases in the federal courts, make it easier for people to access the courts, and create a more diverse judiciary. However, it is also important to consider the potential drawbacks of expansion, such as the cost and the potential for political interference in the judiciary.
The debate over expanding the federal judiciary is likely to continue for some time. It is a complex issue with no easy answers. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to expand the judiciary is a political one that will be made by Congress and the President.
