Is it unconstitutional?
I’m not convinced, but it would be a truly terrible thing for the Democrats to do.
5 thoughts on “Packing The Court”
Comments are closed.
Is it unconstitutional?
I’m not convinced, but it would be a truly terrible thing for the Democrats to do.
Comments are closed.
The constitution allows for any number of things that go against the spirit of our founding.
I heard one solution I kinda thought interesting–
Every inauguration gives the President an appointment to the Supreme Court. That person serves for life, just as now. No limit to number of justices, but the President only gets to appoint more when the total number falls below nine (or eleven, or some given number).
Would make the pressure to “replace” based on political preferences of the previous justice much less. It would insure “new blood” on a regular basis, and also if the number is above the threshold, take off the pressure for another Ginsburg to cling on.
And all could be done through legislation.
Of course, it would be the court itself that determines if it is constitutional or not. My guess is that they would rule unconstitutional, on the basis the court packing removes any power of the court to defy congress. IE, separation of powers.
A more radical thought: Return some State’s Rights by making the Supreme Court Justices of each district a pool. The judges sitting on the Supreme Court are randomly picked for a year long sitting. For example the 5th Seat would be chosen from LA/MS/TX. It might be appropriate to enlarge the court from 9 to 11 justices at the same time.
The tension between Federal Judges and State Supreme Court Judges might prove interesting.
I think the case could be made–maybe not well, maybe not a strong case, but it’s possible–that at this juncture in history any such attempt to pack the Supreme Court would amount to a *putsch* against the very concept of checks and balances, of separation of powers. Ironically it would also be a *putsch* against the very branch of government that the Left relies on the most to impose their will on a public who has rejected it at the ballot box.
It would tear away every last shred of legitimacy the high court retains in the public eye. And that matters a great deal. Legitimacy isn’t something written in a law book or in a bill some politicians passed. Legitimacy is a quality that the general public believes a government has, or not. When a government throws away every last pretense of legitimacy with this kind of blatant, brazen, craven, banana-republic power grab, it’s the sort of thing that starts civil wars.
Given how often jurists on the high court have, historically, been praised fulsomely and effusively for consulting the entrails–I mean, the emanations and penumbras–and coming to a conclusion that agrees with the political desires of those who are doing the praising, I think it would be very hypocritical for Leftists to criticize such a decision. Not, mind you, that it would stop them.