Court Packing

Video of Committee for Justice Panel on Court-Packing and Judicial Reform

The panelists included Joshua Braver (University of Wisconsin), Tom Jipping (Heritage Foundation), and myself.


The Supreme Court.


On Monday, the Committee for Justice sponsored a virtual panel on the timely topic of court-packing and other proposals for judicial reform. The panelists included Prof. Joshua Braver (University of Wisconsin), Tom Jipping (Heritage Foundation), and myself.  Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice moderated. I should note that Josh Braver is the author of an excellent recent article on the history of court-packing.

The video is embedded below.

We discussed both court-packing and a number of other proposals for judicial reform, particularly term limits for Supreme Court justices (an idea that enjoys broad support among legal scholars across the political spectrum, including myself). The panel also touched on President Biden's planned judicial reform commission (which I recently wrote about here). I have previously written about the dangers of court-packing in a variety of posts, such as here and here.

The New York Times once described me as a centrist (probably incorrectly!). But, on this panel I suppose I lived up to their characterization, to some degree, because I was often in the middle between Josh Braver (on the left) and Tom Jipping (on the right), especially when it comes to the question of apportioning responsibility for the sorry state of affairs to which the political conflict over judicial nominations has descended.

I will also take this opportunity to remind people that my very first piece about court-packing was written in response to a Republican proposal to pack the lower courts, back in 2017. If am wrong about court-packing, it isn't because I only oppose it when it might (at least in the short turn) benefit Democrats.


NEXT: Redefining "Anti-Semitism" in the Gina Carano Controversy? Or Just Inaccurate Reporting?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If the Supreme Court will violate Article I Section 1 and make law, it should be the size of a legislature, 500 Justices.

    1. While enacting a Judiciary Act, move the Supreme Court to the middle of the country, to Wichita, KS, away from gay, Hate America minority majority Washington DC, the rent seeking capital of the world.

      Prohibit anyone who has passed 1L from sitting as a Justice. Select random members of the jury pool to sit on it. Enable the impeachment of Justices by the Congress for their decisions without any collateral corruption. If the decision has an unintended consequence 10 years later, impeach. No ghoulish human experimentation by know nothing, bookworm, Ivy indoctrinated lawyers. Void the criminality burdened, and unconstitutional Marbury decision.

    2. You really have no idea what judges do. The Judicial Power in Article III is the power of a judge under a common law legal system, which we inherited from Britain and which is itself referenced specifically in the Bill of Rights. That includes the power to do things that conservatives sometimes like to call “making law”- meaning interpret the law in cases to set precedents and create rules of decisions to be followed in other cases, and by the government and the public.

      1. The cancelling of a law, like the Marriage Protection Act, is the making of a law. That was not an interpretation. It was a repeal by know nothing, bookworm, Ivy indoctrinated Hate America lawyers. They are in insurrection against the constitution, and should be impeached for any act of judicial review.

        The language of Article I Section 1 is plain. All lawmaking power is with the Congress. Why can’t you accept that plain language? Why can’t you accept the dictionary definition of the word, all?

        If you want judicial review by the Supreme Court, enact an Amendment to the constitution.

  2. Might as well organize a conference on the dangers of electing blue whales to the legislature. About as likely to happen.

  3. Who would have thought that it is possible? I really find it cute since you even made an effort to do this. If you are a judicial reform lover and someone who loves Joshua Braver at the same time, this one’s for you! I would ask for help from a resume services here with this matter so I can get the process accordingly. I just hope that I will succeed in it!

Please to post comments