Throttling “Packing the Court”

Liberty
1

There always seems to be a lingering threat the Democrat Party will pack the Supreme Court by increasing the number of Justices on the bench. The claim is that tbe Court should be expanded to reflect the growth in population since the last time additional seats were created.

If a Democrat President decided to act on this, bringing the count of Justices to 13 - by adding four Justices - could stack the rulings for decades.

Instead of leaving that possibility open, the Republican Party should get out ahead of this notion to avoid the potential scenario altogether. Either push Congress to pass a law, or create an amendment, that delays the process and creates two stipulations:
1. The Court can only be expanded by one seat at a time.
2. Any Party that wants to expand the Court can put it up for a Congressional vote, but the seat will not be created until after the next Presidential election.

Stipulation 1 is the piece that throttles the action of “packing the Court” quickly. Being limited to adding one additional seat means that no Party can suddenly stack the Court and have lopsided decisions for the foreseeable future.

Stipulation 2 is the piece that puts some of the process into the hands of American citizens. Voting on the President is currently a roundabout way of shaping the Court, but some Presidents never get the chance to appoint a Justice, and some find themselves with opportunity to appoint multiple judges. In the event one Party had successfully voted to expand the Supreme Court, Stipulation 2 would mean the upcoming Presidential election would be guaranteed to have the incoming President nominate a new Justice. A true Representative Republic.

2

I think a better option would be if there could be put in place a Constitutional Amendment stating that the Supreme Court shall consist of no more than 9 justices.

I know there has been discussion of an amendment that the Supreme Court shall consist of 9 justices, but I think that adding in the ‘no more than’ part leaves room that Congress has room to choose to not take up a nomination if they see fit (such as when Obama tried to nominate the current AG but Congress chose to wait to see how the election would play out).

1 Like
3

Keeping it at 9 is absolute. But, the amendment could be overturned down the road just as easily as it had been passed.

Putting in these stipulations turns it more into a chess match. You want to expand the Court? You have to get the votes in this cycle AND you have to wait until after the next Presidential election, which your party might not win. It’s checks and balances relating to all 3 branches.