Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
Opinion / Politics / Press Releases

AMAC: Court-Packing is Not an Option for Those Disgruntled Over the Confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh

Supreme court Justice Anthony Kennedy retires reshape court Kavanaugh liberals blockWASHINGTON, DC, Oct 19 – “The notion of ‘court packing’ by adding more than the nine Justices already on the Court, might appear to have gained momentum among Democrats as a means of avenging the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  But, it is likely a far fetched notion,” according to Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens [AMAC].

Professors of law have been touting the idea.  In fact, University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds proposed the size of the court be increased to 59.  In an opinion article in USA Today, he suggested the nine justices already seated on the High Court should be joined by one more from each of the 50 states.

It should be noted that the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court, but it did not specify a set number of justices, leaving it up to Congress to do that.  The Judiciary Act of 1789 specified that there be six justices, but that number was increased to seven in 1807 and increased yet again to nine in 1837.

Thus, Congress has the power to increase the number of justices at its will.  President Roosevelt tried to raise the number to 15 in 1937.  However, he could not convince his Congress to go for his plan.

“Indiana University law professor Ian Samuels recently proposed getting pay-back for Kavanaugh by raising the number of justices on the Supreme Court to 15 when Democrats regain Congress and the Presidency.  As Samuels put it: ‘Pack the courts should be a phrase on par with abolish ICE … a half-dozen well-qualified young progressives would make Kennedy’s replacement basically irrelevant.’  But, George Mason University Law Professor Adam White described that idea as a good way to secure President Trump’s re-election if the so-called ‘loyal opposition’ were to leak that particular notion to voters,” Weber explained.

Josh Blackman, a constitutional-law professor at the South Texas College of Law, opposed court packing in an article in The National Review, opting for the status quo.  He wrote that “It is far simpler, and more productive, to garner 51 ‘nay’ votes than to radically alter how our judiciary has functioned throughout the history of our Republic.”

Weber pointed out that “improbable as it is, imagine the outrage among Democrats if the current Republican Congress were to call for an increase in the number of justices on the Supreme Court, whether it be one, two or six.  After all, it would be President Trump who would be picking them over the coming two years.  And, assuming the GOP can hold on to its majority in the Senate, they would most likely confirm all or most of them.”

 

ABOUT AMAC

The Association of Mature American Citizens [AMAC] [https://www.amac.us] is a vibrant, vital senior advocacy organization that takes its marching orders from its members.  We act and speak on their behalf, protecting their interests and offering a practical insight on how to best solve the problems they face today.  Live long and make a difference by joining us today at https://amac.us/join-amac.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by John Grimaldi

14
Leave a Reply

11 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
PaulE

As this article points out, FDR who as a “progressive” tried this stunt when he couldn’t get Congress to enact legislation to give the Executive Branch, meaning him, even more power to micro-manage more aspects of the country. FDR simply decided that he would pack the Court with compliant, like-minded “progressive” Democrat Judges, who would simply rule everything he wanted as Constitutional. Fortunately, we still had representatives in both houses of Congress, who both had a spine and stood for the Constitution. So FDR was stopped from implementing much of the policies he admired from “Uncle Joe”. Packing the courts has been a popular strategy used by every Socialist or Communist regime for more than 100 years. So it is not surprising current Democrats are in favor of it in order to circumvent both the will of the people and the restrictions the Constitution puts on the federal government. Specifically… Read more »

Fixer48

When the Dems lose the game they want to change the rules.

Teri

This is very tiresome. If the right had been coming up with all these ridiculous ideas when Obama was president it would have been outrageous to the left. Now it is something everyday. Such a bunch of spoil sports.

Tommy Molnar

My opinion may not be popular, but I don’t think time should be spent trying to overturn Roe v Wade. This is a hot button that will motivate left leaning women who think the right wants to take away women’s rights. We don’t, but try to get CNN to say that. Not happening. There are other (in my opinion) problems of importance that need the attention of the highest court on the land.

Dan

Leave as is! Increasing number would only increase the ambivalence and careless attitude of the already ignorant Amercan voter. This is a republic not a democracy. Let’s continue to try and follow closely the mind of our Founding Fathers. Let’s exorcise rogue thinking from our midst! Going down that road is a path of no return. Let’s value and respect what we have. We have had enough of extreme make over of our society. Our Republic has survived- “praise God!!!”

Good article. Hope to see more!

Good article. Hope to see more!

this is

Seems the Democrats are not thinking straight, but only opening up a pathway for President Trump to nominate more conservative justices on the SC! They must be so desperate!

Scottar

To me the issue is- would 9 or 7 be enough for a sufficient number on the court? The character of the court changes with the politico leanings of the President and the Senate. And what happens if you lose 1 or 2 on the court. Should health be a strong issue is in the case of Ginsburg?

Joseph Jenkins

Dear Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds — your stupid idea should earn you the “Brain Fart of the Year” award.

Priscilla Burden

I don’t even trust congress anymore. They are part of the swamp, both Dems and Reps. I just keep praying for our President to do the right thing for a change and he is doing rather well. Anyone who listens to law professors are a little off. If they are so smart, why aren’t they rich? I hope my grand children don’t go to college. Too bad that Liberty University is so expensive.

michael failla

Sure lets change all the rules when you lose. They will stop at nothing to maintain and keep their power. Power uber alles!