• About Us
  • Who Are We
  • Work With Us
Sunday, January 29, 2023
No Result
View All Result
NEWSLETTER
The Globe Post
39 °f
New York
44 ° Fri
46 ° Sat
40 ° Sun
41 ° Mon
No Result
View All Result
The Globe Post
No Result
View All Result
Home National

Will Additional Justices Depoliticize or Further Divide US Supreme Court?

Imogen Francis by Imogen Francis
11/05/19
in National
The United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C

The United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Photo: Eric Baradat/AFP

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

For decades presidents and politicians have touted the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court in an effort to depoliticize it, but experts say the political maneuver may only further divide the court along party lines.

The idea of adding justices to the court, also known as court-packing, made headlines when multiple Democratic presidential candidates showed their interest in such plans.

In the last Democratic debate, candidate Pete Buttigieg introduced his plan to reform the Supreme Court, which includes adding justices to the bench. He proposed that the court would have five Democrat justices and five Republican, and then those 10 justices would select five more apolitical justices from lower appellate courts.

But experts are wary of any court-packing plans and their ability to remove politics from the courtroom, especially during the Senate confirmation process. 

“If Democrats were to take back control of the White House and the Senate at the same time and have unified government and expand the size of the court, they would be creating a precedent that would allow the Republicans to justify doing the exact same thing once they had that power. So essentially it just becomes an arms race,” said Ryan Black, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University.

Is Court-Packing Constitutional?

The Constitution dictates that the president nominates justices and the Senate confirms them. However, the document does not allocate the number of seats on the court, rather that it is a job for Congress.

So technically speaking, Congress can add seats to the court by passing new legislation without needing to amend the constitution.

However, in Buttigieg’s plan, he wants to reform the entire process for appointing justices. He would give appointing powers of the five apolitical justices to the 10 Democrat and Republican-affiliated justices.

Caroline Mala Corbin, a law professor at the University of Miami, said that this “may well be unconstitutional,” because the Constitution awards nomination powers to the president and confirmation powers to the Senate.

Additionally, Black said the responsibility of appointing judges to the court should fall on publicly elected officials.

“I think it is a pretty bad idea to have the justices picking who gets to be on the Supreme Court. You’re just essentially moving the politicization from individuals who at the very least are elected to individuals that nobody ended up electing,” she told The Globe Post.

Has Anyone Else Tried to “Pack the Court”?

President Franklin D. Roosevelt infamously tried to add justices to the Supreme Court in 1937. His Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, which eventually became known as the Court-Packing Plan, aimed to allow presidents to add a new justice for every justice over 70 years and six months old, up to a maximum of six additional justices.

Roosevelt’s attempt to reform the court was seen as politically motivated. Following the Great Depression, Roosevelt was trying to pass New Deal legislation to get Americans back on their feet financially. But, the court was not as welcoming to the legislation and ruled parts of it unconstitutional.

To combat the lack of support from the justices, Roosevelt introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill to expand the number of justices on the court and pack it with people who were ideologically favorable to his New Deal legislation.

However, with a lack of support on both sides of the aisle, Roosevelt’s Bill died on the Senate floor. Since then presidents and politicians have frequently talked about expanding the court but none have formally tried to do it.

How to Depoliticize the Court

The court has not always been as politically contentious as it is today. In past confirmation hearings, justices were often unanimously confirmed by Senators.

One example of the political shift is Justice Antonin Scalia’s 1986 confirmation versus that of Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017. On paper, Black said the two justices are similar, yet their confirmation processes were vastly different. Scalia was confirmed with a 98 to zero vote, yet Gorsuch’s confirmation vote was a much closer 54 to 45.

“We know that it can be less contentious you look at the confirmation votes for Justice Scalia, Scalia was basically unanimously confirmed,” said Black. “But there is no chance in a million years that Scalia would get that type of vote outcome today. And the way we know that is that Justice Gorsuch was essentially a clone of Scalia or in many ways similar to him in terms of the background he brought.”

Despite the tense political climate in the United States, Supreme Court experts often talk of imposing term limits to minimize the polarization among the confirmation process and the court as a whole.

Currently, Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments to the court and can only be removed if they are impeached. This means that every justice has the potential to ideologically impact the court for decades, such as Justice Clarence Thomas who has been on the court for just over 28 years.  

“Term limits end up routinizing a process that right now is sort of stochastic and random. So if every president knows if he or she is going to get two appointments to the bench and that they’re going to serve for 10 years that decreases some of the salience and some of the significance of a nomination,” said Black.

However, Corbin is unsure whether imposing term limits would depolarize the court or have an adverse effect.

“I do not know whether term limits, which would result in more frequent appointments to the Supreme Court, would make the process less political. On the one hand, each nomination would become less critical. On the other hand, it may just mean the political battles over nominees occur more frequently,” she said to The Globe Post.

But despite the difference in views on term limits, experts agree that adding seats to the Supreme Court is not going to get the outcome politicians except.

“My hunch would be that if it’s this packing type process that’s not going to be something that ends up being successful in terms of tamping own the contentious nature of the confirmation process,” said Black.

Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Kill ‘Dreamers’ Program

 

ShareTweet
Imogen Francis

Imogen Francis

Contact her @squimo

Related Posts

The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC
Featured

After RBG: Potential Tyranny of the Minority

by Amitrajeet A. Batabyal
October 26, 2021
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC
National

US Supreme Court Allows First Federal Execution in 17 Years

by Lillian Andemicael
July 14, 2020
US Senator Bernie Sanders speaks at "The People's Summit" in Chicago, June 10, 2017.
National

Sanders Closes in on Buttigieg’s Iowa Lead as DNC Orders Recount

by Bryan Bowman
February 6, 2020
From left to right: Sen. Cory Brooker, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders on the debate stage in Atlanta
National

Iowa White House Vote Turns to Fiasco as Results Delayed

by Staff Writer
February 4, 2020
The Supreme Court of the United States.
National

US Supreme Court to Examine ‘Dreamers’ Program Trump Wants Axed

by Staff Writer
November 12, 2019
People holding up banners to defend DACA.
Featured

US Supreme Court to Take Up ‘Dreamers’ Case

by Staff Writer
June 28, 2019
Next Post
razilian President Jair Bolsonaro delivers a speech

Brazil to Auction Off Massive Oil Reserves to Foreign Companies

Rebuke for Trump in Races Seen as Barometers for 2020 Election

Rebuke for Trump in Races Seen as Barometers for 2020 Election

Recommended

The Doomsday Clock reads 100 seconds to midnight, a decision made by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, during an announcement at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on January 23, 2020

‘Doomsday Clock’ Moves Closest Ever to Midnight

January 25, 2023
Police work near the scene of a mass shooting in Monterey Park, California

California Lunar New Year Mass Shooter Dead, Motive Unclear: Police

January 23, 2023
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

Race on To Replace Ardern as New Zealand Prime Minister

January 20, 2023
Pfizer logo and vaccines

Pfizer to Sell More Drugs at Cost to Poor Nations

January 18, 2023
Rescuers inspect the wreckage at the site of a Yeti Airlines plane crash in Pokhara, Nepal

At Least 67 Killed in Nepal Plane Crash

January 16, 2023
George Santos from the 3rd Congressional district of New York

George Santos for Speaker!

January 16, 2023

Opinion

George Santos from the 3rd Congressional district of New York

George Santos for Speaker!

January 16, 2023
Commuters waiting for buses in Metro Manila. Philippines

Eight Billion and Counting…

November 29, 2022
Mahsa Amini protests

Imagining a Free Iran

October 24, 2022
Vladimir Putin

How 18th Century International Law Clarifies the Situation in Ukraine

September 29, 2022
Vladimir Putin

Falling for Putin

September 15, 2022
US President Donald Trump

Donald Trump Thanks You for Your Sacrifice

August 17, 2022
Facebook Twitter

Newsletter

Do you like our reporting?
SUBSCRIBE

About Us

The Globe Post

The Globe Post is part of Globe Post Media, a U.S. digital news organization that is publishing the world's best targeted news sites.

submit oped

© 2018 The Globe Post

No Result
View All Result
  • National
  • World
  • Business
  • Interviews
  • Lifestyle
  • Democracy at Risk
    • Media Freedom
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Columns
    • Book Reviews
    • Stage
  • Submit Op-ed

© 2018 The Globe Post