The current plans to “pack” the Supreme Court could be the way to not only save the lives of numerous people but also keep the nation’s highest court from being controlled by individuals whose ideologies do not represent those of the country.
“Court-packing” is more than a phrase created in the past year to describe the creation of a significant imbalance of either right-wing or left-wing ideologies within the nation’s highest court. It has historical significance as well.
One of the first incidents of “court-packing” existed before the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, when Federalists shrank the number of Supreme Court seats from 6 to 5 with the hopes of appointing more of their allies before Jefferson became president.
This is a similar situation to the Mitch McConnell-led congress approving filling a vacant justice seat mere days before the 2020 election to strengthen an already conservative majority.
The next notable attempt to pack the court was Franklin Roosevelt’s Judicial Procedures Reform Bill which would have added an additional justice to the Supreme Court for every judge older than 70 years, 6 months. This would have increased the number of Supreme Court judges to 15 with an assistant appointed and given voting rights as well.
Roosevelt’s plan to pack the court came as the result of several important pieces of his New Deal being struck down. This attempt is the most vital, as many legal experts look back to this attempt as an example of the benefits of court-packing.
Being a Supreme Court justice is a lifetime job and as the nation’s ideologies change, so should the most important court in the nation. While the nation may have grown more liberal, Supreme Court justices have generally stayed with the same ideologies they started with. Therefore, reform seems to be needed to ensure that those who are placed in such a significant position of power grow along with the ideologies of the nation.
So how does this relate to now?
Five of the nine current Supreme Court justices are over 65, with three of the five being between the ages of 70 and 82. This isn’t to say that someone over 65 could not be a Justice; in fact, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was beloved by individuals young and old and was a role model to countless people. However, placing a threshold on age or on the number of terms a justice is allowed to serve would allow for the ideologies of the court to progress with the nation and ensure that anyone who sits on the court doesn’t remain for decades. Once an individual is placed on the Supreme Court, they are there until they are impeached, retire or pass away. This level of authority, without fear of any significant consequence or loss of their position, could become a serious issue.
For instance, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his actions as a teenager shouldn’t be a determination of who he is now during his 2018 confirmation hearing when defended himself against sexual assault accusations leveled by Christine Blasey Ford. However, Kavanaugh holds the opinion that the actions of a juvenile convicted of committing a crime is incapable of being rehabilitated.
With the current Supreme Court having a significantly conservative majority of 6-3, the addition of justices seems like it would be instrumental in creating a better representation of the nation’s ideologies. Some of the numerous cases that the Supreme Court evaluates include the constitutional right to abortion, gun control regulations, LGBTQ rights and cases involving police misconduct and violence. These cases could be determining factors in the lives of US citizens for generations to come.
Recently, President Joe Biden named a panel which would study possible changes to the structure of the Supreme Court. This includes the addition of justices, term limits and complete reform of the Court. These could potentially be the first changes to the Court since 1869. While there isn’t much information about how likely a change to the structure of the Court is, it’s refreshing to see possible reform to a court that has taken on three new conservative judges over the last five years.
