In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, coming off of a massive electoral victory and irked that the Supreme Court had stood in the way of his New Deal on various occasions during his first term, had legislation introduced that would expand the number of seats on the Court, which he would then be able to presumably appoint sympathetic justices to.
(The size of SCOTUS is not dictated by the Constitution, but has been fixed in law at nine since 1869.)
However, he did so in a clumsy and impolitic fashion, annoying some key Democrats who had to support the bill. That, and some other bad luck, led to the initiative’s eventual defeat, though he was in office long enough to craft a SCOTUS that would support his key policies.
The Democrats in 2019 are toying with a similar idea. The concept is that Trump has taken advantage of GOP Senate shenanigans to start filling the high court with appointees that will carry on his policies for a generation to come. Only by diluting or countering those appointees can the Dems level the playing field (if not tilt it to their side).
These GOP shenanigans in particular are used as justification for playing such a hardball tactic:
- The GOP’s 2017 elimination of the filibuster/cloture rules for SCOTUS appointees, meaning the simple Senate majority the GOP had could seat anyone they wanted. (The Dems had previously eliminated the filibuster for other federal court nominations in 2013, against GOP intransigence in passing any of Obama’s nominees.)
- The 2015 move by Mitch McConnell to block President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, over a year before the next election, by simply not taking up his nomination.
Boy.
On the one hand, the McConnell / GOP moves were naked politics, as outrageous and unfair and damaging to the politics and process as the suggestion by some Dems that a court-packing scheme is the best counter to Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (and whomever else he manages to get in there over the next 1-5 years). And it’s hard to argue with them on that argument.
On the other hand, carrying on that tradition seems only liable to make things worse — and simply provides further justification for the GOP to do something even more extreme (“Eleven justices? Bah! We’ll make it 15 for Don, Junior’s first term!”). That way madness lies.
On the still-other hand, the GOP has shown they will do anything in this arena. Being unwilling to counter it is to surrender the field. If only one side is willing to protect an institution, it’s not really being protected.
All this is contingent, of course, on the Dems taking back the White House and the Senate in 2020. That seems certainly possible at this stage, though by no means a lock, so this may all be just idle speculation.
But expect to hear this question come up during presidential debates. And the Dems are going to have to have good answers to keep themselves from not looking like the villains of the piece.
Do you want to know more? 2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court – POLITICO
Um, I believe this elimination of the filibuster was started in 2013 with Sen. Harry Reid. Sen. McConnell just extended that rule change. Also, under Pres. Obama, all his nominees were confirmed by the senate with a majority vote, meaning, many republicans voted for his nominees. They understood and respected the fact the Obama won the election and it was his right/choice to pick who he wanted.
The Constitution isn’t a living document, meaning, the rules can change to fit out current whims. The constitution does allow for amendments to better our Country, which have proven valuable. I would prefer a Constitutional Judge over a Judge that is looking to legislate. That’s were our Congress has failed us. They don’t have the courage to legislate, no, they would rather have the courts do that for them. They want to get re-elected and be in control of the purse strings.
Yet, Democrats are always looking for a way to subvert tradition and or the rules. For example, let’s get rid of the Electoral College or lower the voting age to 16 when we have these students under “house arrest” and can fill their minds with propaganda and not teach them civics.
It seems odd that only the Democrats hold the higher moral venue and therefore, their Judges are the only ones protecting us from a Fascists regime. Yet, many of their policies and laws are just what they claim to be against. Can’t rule logically or truthfully, therefore, will force it down your throats until you get the point that we know how you should live your life and what you should and shall consume. I mean, we only have 12 years until the world comes to an end due to global warming/climate change/etc…Side note, Al Gore said in 1990, we only had 10 years, the UN report in 1989 said, 10 years, yet, here we are surviving and some might say striving.
@Michael – As I actually mentioned in the article, in 2013 Reid got the Senate to change its rules regarding the filibuster for federal judges other than the Supreme Court. Whether that was a wise move or not, in the face of GOP intransigence in moving forward Obama’s nominees (both for federal office and the federal courts) at the tiem, it’s a tool that McConnell has used to push forward a massive number of judicial nominations under Trump.
To generalize, no. They were confirmed with a majority vote while the Democrats had a Senate Majority. When the GOP regained the Senate in 2014, Mitch McConnell brought approving those Obama nominations to a screeching halt, including, as noted, even considering a SCOTUS vacancy that occured over a year before the election.
It was McConnell as well that, in 2018, expanded the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS appointees.
I suggest that the Constitution is a living document to the extent that it has to be interpreted against modern occurrences and situations that were not in the scope of what the Founders could imagine (or, for that matter, regarding matters that a group of landed white men 230 years ago had opinions very different from today). That’s a little bit different from being whimsical.
Which can’t be done directly without a Constitutional Amendment. I don’t know of anybody who suggests otherwise.
That said, it can be somewhat effectively and constitutionally bypassed through the constitutional delegation of how the electors are selected to the states.
Who is suggesting allowing 16yos to vote in federal elections without a constitutional amendment to do so?
The rest of your screed attacking the Democrats (with an odd side jaunt into bashing climate change science) honestly isn’t worth the time to respond to. If you’d care to have a reasoned discussion, I welcome it. If you’re just going to go on with “Can’t rule logically or truthfully, therefore, will force it down your throats until you get the point that we know how you should live your life and what you should and shall consume” ranting, please save both us the time.