House Democrats Revive Their Court-Packing Push
Adding progressive justices to the bench would eventually backfire.

On Monday, eight House Democrats held a press conference on the Capitol steps to advocate for a court-packing scheme that would expand the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices from nice to 13, thus allowing President Biden to add four more judges to the court. Four more judges, it just so happens, is exactly the number Democrats need to overturn the Court's current 6-3 conservative majority.
The announcement comes in the wake of several Supreme Court decisions that have angered Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists. "Weeks after schoolchildren were massacred in Texas, they took away protections against gun violence," said Sara Lipton, the executive director of Take Back the Court Action Fund during Monday's press conference. "During the hottest summer on record, they made it harder for the EPA to combat climate change. And in a year where state houses across the country pushed hateful anti-trans legislation, the court eviscerated the boundary between church and state, opening the door to discrimination and violence."
Rep. Hank Johnson Jr. (D–Ga.) and the other speakers called for the passage of the court-packing Judiciary Act of 2021, which would expand the court to 13 justices. Johnson, a sponsor of the bill, said at the press conference that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas is a "74-year-old spry individual who's getting to the point where he wants to wreak his havoc on Americans," and that "you can see the gleam in [Samuel Alito's] eye as he thinks about what he wants to do to decimate the rights of people and put us back into the Dark Ages."
The bill is currently in the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. According to The Hill, it is unlikely to go anywhere.
Court-packing advocates seldom acknowledge the downsides of expansion. As Reason Senior Editor Damon Root wrote in February 2021, "Court packing is a naked power grab and an attack on the independence of the judiciary. It is a tit-for-tat race to the bottom. One party expands the size of the bench for nakedly partisan purposes, so the other party does the same (or worse) as soon as it gets the chance."
On Monday, Bill Scher argued in Washington Monthly that court-packing is unlikely to lead to long-term success for Democrats. "Once you can breezily change Court composition on a partisan basis, you no longer have an independent judiciary," he wrote. "In other words, court-packing doesn't secure reproductive freedom. Over the long term, it only locks us in our current predicament, where our rights are subject to the whims of the electorate."
President Biden has yet to support packing the court, something Root noted in a 2021 article. Whether he knows where adding justices would eventually lead, the reality is that Democrats in Congress can protect unenumerated rights by writing and passing legislation. In fact, considerable effort has been made on that front since the release of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Trying to pack the Supreme Court is both a bad idea and a distraction.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Whether he knows where adding justices would eventually lead, the reality is that Democrats in Congress can protect unenumerated rights by writing and passing legislation.
Nice usage of Unenumerated Rights there. I've seen that that's becoming a common through-line here.
Writing and passing legislation isn't Congress' job.
Whose job is it?
Or did I miss the "/sarc"?
The DNC, or rather, the AOC Bernie wing.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-05) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
Writing and passing legislation is MY job! I should be “dictator for life.” I know what’s best! Why can’t everyone just SUBMIT!!
They sure don't count repealing idiotic laws as their job. Heinlein's suggestion for a simple-majority repealing body sounds better and better.
Technically, it would only allow Biden to NOMINATE four more justices.
Something about the Senate, which has 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 independents.
Think of how the court would vote in a case over who really has a majority in the Senate.
Technically, this bill has zero chance of passing in the current Senate.
This isn't happening unless Democrats win a solid Senate majority in November
I wouldn't say zero. There actually is a parliamentary path to getting it through the Senate. It would nuke inter-party comity, but they could do it.
They'd have to tee it up in the House first, and then hold a snap session in the Senate, carefully timed to make sure that Democrats were 2/3 of the Senators present. And then ram it through before enough Republican Senators showed up the stop them. Without any amendments, of course, so that they'd only have to do it the once.
This would require that Democrats be a supermajority of the Senators present, so that they could proceed even though some of their own members would refuse to cooperate.
After that, the only way the Republicans could keep Biden from filling the new vacancies would be to have all of them camp out in the Senate chambers until the election had given them a majority. Which would make running for reelection kind of tough...
I foresee a Supreme Court composed of 14,239 justices and 122 rotating Chief Justices, and I'd like to start at $5 pool on what year the 14,239th justice will be nominated and confirmed. Send me $5 money orders with your chosen year written on the back of the money order. I'll keep track of it on a spreadsheet, and I'll pay off the winners when it happens - honest.
The Democrats seem to react very poorly to losing control over an institution very poorly. Not to mention resenting adhering to the Constitution, the rule of law, logic, basic ethics and morality, small "r" & "d" republican and democratic norms...
Secession over losing the 1860 Presidential race was a big clue. I support the right to secede, but it has to be orderly, not just spur of the moment; there's assets to divide up, etc. But the worst thing about it was it being so obviously sour grapes. They were quite happy to be part of the federal government as long as the slavocracy controlled Congress with their 3/5 vote. They fully participated in the election itself, would have been quite happy to accept the results if they had won; but when they lost, they went crying home like a bunch of spoiled little babies.
Then when they lost the war they started, they were happy to keep fucking over ex-slaves, and when the 14th Amendment put a stop to that, they eviscerated it with the Slaughterhouse cases. Then they enforced Jim Crow with Plessy.
Over and over, the lefties have acted like spoiled brats who don't need to be logical or consistent.
Fuck 'em.
Yea, they were assholes. They did have some legitimate concerns, but wouldn't compromise.
But the abolitionists were assholes too, at least the most vocal activists, and did everything they could to provoke the south and back them into a corner.
There were few Good Guys with a prominent role in the Civil War.
The South, obviously.
But let's look at Union heroes:
-Lincoln: great leader, basically assumed totalitarian power. Might've made up for it he'd lived through his 2nd term.
-Grant: effective general, won the war by throwing bodies into the fight without being overly concerned about taking casualties.
-Sherman: Total War.
Grant's biggest attitude was the fact that he was the first Union general to utilize the Unions biggest attribute, manpower and manufacturing. Unlike previous generals he didn't let up pressure after a single defeat. He kept the pressure on, in Tennessee and then in Virginia. And it's kind of a myth he didn't care about casualties, his diaries show that the casualties bothered him immensely but he felt that the longer the war went on, the worse the casualties, so accepted higher short term casualties to shorten the war.
"Grant's biggest attitude was the fact that he was the first Union general to utilize the Unions biggest attribute, manpower and manufacturing..."
There is a book which takes first place on the shelves devoted to WWII history: Richard Overy, "Why the Allies Won". Simply because it is both spectacularly wrong and so internally contradictory.
Overy claims that a predestined allied victory as a result of economics was not true, and then ends every single one of his chapters claiming such by citing evidence that the victory was, indeed, the exact cause of the Allies victory.
Ignoring "optional" wars (Vietnam) and the 'single battle' weather effects (Kamikazi), tracing them all wars into pre-history as best we can, most every war was an economic competition; the stronger economy won in nearly every case. Yes, I do have cites, back to X-BCE; if you wish to argue, you are going to have to come up with others
The Ukraine/Russian war continues because neither country has an economy much above current 3rd-world standards and the distribution nukes makes Putin (properly) cautious; he is unlikely to nuke the US, England, France, Israel all before one retaliates, and, thug that he is, he'd like to die in bed.
Who will 'win' that war is not clear for obvious reasons; my sympathies are with the Ukrainians; they invaded no one.
I will predict right now that the only way Putin dies in bed is if he takes an overdose of sleeping pills. He's already past the "dies in bed" point, in terms of pissing people off.
Forces under the command of Gen. Lee took a higher proportion of casualties in the War than did forces under the command of Gen. Grant.
As they were pretty much likely to do; the north had better (and more) weapons.
Economics counts, 'fighting spirit' not so much as the south learned
Yeah.... then comes the 2020 election and the right wingnuts get their chance at "sour grapes".
Maybe its those the favor states-rights that are the real villains here?
States rights seem to mean that laws that would never be acceptable to the country as a whole, can be enforced willy nilly at the state level. Slavery, segregation, religious nuttery, police state totalitarianism... revised history/science etc.
"Maybe in this corner of Arkansas we can ignore reality and enforce our own"
Blaming modern Democrats for what happened in 1860 doesn't make much more sense than blaming modern whites for slavery.
Having said that. It is notable to see modern dems talk of court packing so soon after the repubs worked and waited for decades to tip the nine and enact the change that fueled that desire.
Republicans could have had Dobbs decades ago if they'd been willing to burn it all down by packing the Court. And they held that line through multiple defeats.
Democrats started talking about packing the Court the first time they lost a major case. Actually, I suppose that was true when FDR first proposed it way back when. But he was largely alone back then, at this point a large fraction of Democrats want the Court packed.
The thing that really concerns me about Court packing is that everybody talks about tit for tat. And that's foolish.
There will be no tit for tat, because nobody would be stupid enough to pack the Court and leave it at that. You'd always follow up by passing entrenchment legislation of the sort you need a packed Court to not get struck down, so that the other guys would never be in a position to retaliate.
Court packing is pulling the e-stop on Erdogan's trolly. You don't do it and then not depart the train.
Talk about a very poor reaction to not winning the White House.
Which of these actions you neither understand nor cite correctly, broke the rules and processes of the legislature?
You mean like Republicans blocking every single Obama judicial appointment so THEY could stack the courts when they won the Presidency? Then used the nuke option to ram through as many YOUNG judges as they possibly could. Talk about a very poor reaction to not winning the White House.
How odd we never hear about that.
The Dems had a perfect chance (while controlling the Presidency and the House, and being at 50:50 in the Senate) to pass an Amendment that would have solved the problem (as discussed in earlier threads) by limiting terms to a single 18 year term (along with several poison pills to keep future Senates from playing games and stalling nominations). An honest, balanced bill would probably easily been ratified by 37 states in short order to bring the sideshow to an end. But, then, neither side wants adults running the show, they want the spectacle and a cause to bang their drums.
Why do you think the Senate shouldn't be able to conduct its constitutional duties how they see fit? Not voting or holding hearings is not playing games. We aren't the Holy Roman Empire where the estates have to vote for the person the emperor appoints. That shit was settled with the Peace of Westphalia.
"a court-packing scheme that would expand the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices from nice (sic) to 13"
So ...
13 would be not so nice?
The Constitution agrees!
Rep. Hank Johnson Jr. (D–Ga.) and the other speakers called for the passage of the court-packing Judiciary Act of 2021
I'm pretty sure this is the guy who was worried that Guam might tip over.
Well duh, he's D-G(u)a(m), isn't he, says so right on the name placard he puts on his desk facing him so he remembers who he is.
"Weeks after schoolchildren were massacred in Texas, they took away protections against gun violence," said Sara Lipton, the executive director of Take Back the Court Action Fund during Monday's press conference. "During the hottest summer on record, they made it harder for the EPA to combat climate change. And in a year where state houses across the country pushed hateful anti-trans legislation, the court eviscerated the boundary between church and state, opening the door to discrimination and violence."
What an odd way to endorse the best court of our lifetimes.
"The unconstitutional rules we have didn't prevent a school massacre, so they have the noive to replace them with rules which did allow a single man to stop a massacre two months later. The noive of them!"
The population has increased substantially since the current population of the Court developed.
The number of federal circuits has increased, too . . . to 13.
When Republicans had the votes, they arranged a Court that resembles a John Birch meeting of the '50s more than it does modern America (the educated, advanced, successful, reasoning communities in particular). As was their right.
When Democrats have the votes, they should enlarge the Court. As would be their right, particularly if done as I envision -- in line with ample precedent, in scrupulous compliance with the rules.
Republicans have overplayed a stale, ugly, unpopular hand. That should and, I expect, will have consequences. I don't expect many Democrats to announce plans regarding enlargement until the votes are ready to be counted, much as a few Court nominees refrained from saying 'I will vote to eviscerate Roe first chance I get, not so much because I want to as, well, because sweet infant eight-pound, six-ounce baby Jesus tells me I must."
I sure hope you're right, Art.
However you'll understand if I don't hold my breath. You kind of burned me when you confidently predicted we'd have a 13-Justice Supreme Court within 6 months of Joe Biden's inauguration. Just a humiliating faceplant from someone who apparently slept through the court expansion theory lectures at Yale Law. 🙁
#LibertariansForCourtExpansion
"a John Birch meeting of the '50s"
Weren't they the paranoid people making wild charges and ridiculous generalizations?
Oh, look!
Asshole bigot shows up to make an ass of himself again!
Fuck off and die, slimy pile of lefty shit.
I love all of the reso takes that what dems do is wrong only because Republicans might get the power some day
Funny how that works, eh? Rather than ranting about the awful shit the left does they decide to rant about something barely relevant the right does or might do. When the right calls out evil shit from the left then we're stuck reading how awful it is that Republicans pounce
Somebody explain the Nolan Chart to LoserLooter boy here so he can learn to count to three. And add a large tin of Republican Formula Butthurt Salve to that order, if you don't mind.
Of course you have to push to pack it! Push harder! Harder! Oh, sorry. I got confused again.
/Secretary Pete
Boo, Packers!
These protections do but fuck all and jack shit.
"Weeks after schoolchildren were massacred in Texas, they took away protections against gun violence,"
Uhm, I guess those protections weren't working so well?
Because gun control has been a roaring success. Explains why cities with the strictest gun control are the most violent shitholes.
Banning government schools is, statistically and economically, the obvious solution. To rid us of Representatives who accept Warmunism as their own Personal Savior, State legislatures need only require a passing grade in High School physics.
Packing the court is a short-sighted political maneuver. The democrat party ruling elite falsely believe that they will always retain power. Their recent authoritarian tactics clearly demonstrate that their goal isn't to better the life of citizens, but rather to seize complete and total power.
The reality is that numerous registered democrats do not want what the democrat party ruling elite are pursuing. Most citizens don't want an authoritarian single party state. Most citizens don't want government involved in every aspect of their lives.
There is a reason that control for the federal government vacillates between the two dominant parties. This reason is that the vast majority of people distrust the federal government and the two dominant parties.
Packing the court would provide a temporary gain, but quickly result in a nightmare. Karma eventually strikes back 10 fold.
They don't believe they will always retain power. They intend that they will always retain power. Not quite the same thing.
Restoring the original duty of circuit-riding (on a horse, with a flintlock for protection) ought to appeal to the Dems. No way would it fail to rid us of antediluvian witch-burners like Long Dong and Palito. Mencken's suggestion for opening up a vacancy to reclaim the Bill of Rights from the Harrison and Volstead acts also merits another visit.
Yes, court packing is a bad idea. But the status quo is not sustainable.
A better solution would be to guarantee that every President, during each term of office, gets two SCOTUS appointments - whether or not there are vacancies. Yes, the Court would expand (or, on occasion, shrink), but so what? Over time, the Court would more closely track the judicial preferences of elected officials and the people who elect them, which is the only way that a republic in which the judiciary holds veto power can be sustained.
Weird how this "only way" wasn't needed for the first 240+ years, eh? It apparently was not needed when more progressive Courts made rulings that failed to reflect the popular will in the 1960s-90s. Now a conservative majority briefly gains control and radical expansion and other changes are necessary for the republic. I disagree with many recent SCOTUS decisions but find theses sudden calls for "reform" laughable. It is all so nakedly partisan sour grapes and Dem's inability to deal with having lost control and unwillingness to fight within existing rules. If you don't like the direction of the Court then convince enough voters to support your party's candidates for Senate and WH to control the appointments just like GOP did when they hated the decisions coming from SCOTUS. You can also get Congress to pass relevant legislation in many cases. Do the hard work and change your message to the electorate so you get filibuster and/or veto proof majorities. If you can't do that then what you want is clearly not popular enough to justify radical alteration of one of the coequal branches.
Democrats HATE the U.S. Constitution... They want to put criminals in as justices EXACTLY to violate it... It's fully apparent by reading any leftards opinion ruling. They don't even refer to the U.S. Constitution but just spout out emotional blabber.