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.”



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
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

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

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 years ago

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
4 years ago

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

Priscilla Burden
4 years ago

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.

4 years ago

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!!!”

this is
4 years ago

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!

michael failla
4 years ago

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

Good article. Hope to see more!
4 years ago

Good article. Hope to see more!

4 years ago

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.

4 years ago

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

Tommy Molnar
4 years ago

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.

4 years ago
Reply to  Tommy Molnar

I agree strongly.
I have an opinion on abortion, and it’s neither a total ban nor total legality, but that issue is so far down on the list of important issues facing our country as to be basically irrelevant.
Republicans should focus on important issues like the economy, national security, immigration, deregulation and tax reduction, and avoid stirring up the abortion hornets nest, which directly affects only those who choose to put themselves in that position. God will deal with those people in the end anyway.

4 years ago

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 on the second point, as it pertains to what the federal government can do to the American people without their consent. Court packing adds an air of legitimacy to policies that would never be approved legislatively.

This highlights why it is so vitally important to maintain control of both houses of Congress this November. The Democrats have learned from their previous errors when they controlled both houses of Congress under Obama. They operated largely under existing rules, which slowed them down enough for the American people to mount an effective counter strategy and remove Congressional control from Democrats. If Democrats ever regain control of Congress, they will act swiftly to nullify existing legislative and judicial protections, so they can quickly enact sweeping, permanent changes to the country. Many Democrats have laid out their agenda quite plainly. So get every conservative you know to vote this November. It’s your country. So stand up for it or it will vanish before your eyes. VOTE!!!

4 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

PaulE always look forward to your incisive commentary, thanks for sharing. we must vote while we still are able and that ballots are meaningful.

Pete M
4 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

I’ve already done my part and voted (by mail). Everyone else needs to vote ASAP, either by mail, via early voting, or on election day!!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x