Could the Supreme Court rule against court packing?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:51:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Could the Supreme Court rule against court packing?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Could the Supreme Court rule against court packing?  (Read 684 times)
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 28, 2020, 02:47:40 PM »

Let's say a Democratic trifecta in 2021 passes the Judiciary Reform Act of 2021 to add two, three or even four more seats to the Supreme Court. Now of course we know the number of justices at the court is not mandated in the constitution, which means lawmakers have to power to determine the number of seats. But given how politicized the court is, is there any chance the current bench strikes such a law down? And what would happen if they did, say the three liberals and Roberts dissent?

I'd say such a ruling would have no basis from a legal standpoint, but there have been other outrageous decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder, in which the court should have had no business to begin with.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2020, 03:05:39 PM »

This is probably a case where one or more of the current members of the liberal bloc defects (probably Breyer, possibly Kagan or Sotomayor, but not both, and certainly not all three members of the bloc), rather than one more members of the conservative bloc going the other way.

I can't see most justices of both parties being fond of Congress or the Executive Branch meddling in the Court's independence (as weak as it is) in any way.

I'd expect a 7-2 decision (Breyer joins the conservative bloc.) striking down court packing.
Logged
Pollster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,756


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2020, 03:45:42 PM »

A hypothetical law expanding the court would need to include language that removes oversight/regulation/etc of the Supreme Court from the court's own jurisdiction.

There's also no real way for the court to enforce such a decision.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2020, 05:46:57 PM »

This is probably a case where one or more of the current members of the liberal bloc defects (probably Breyer, possibly Kagan or Sotomayor, but not both, and certainly not all three members of the bloc), rather than one more members of the conservative bloc going the other way.

I can't see most justices of both parties being fond of Congress or the Executive Branch meddling in the Court's independence (as weak as it is) in any way.

I'd expect a 7-2 decision (Breyer joins the conservative bloc.) striking down court packing.

It's extremely likely Breyer retires by next summer if Dems control the federal government.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2020, 08:49:44 PM »

There's plenty of precedent for changing the size of the Court via legislation. About the only way I could see SCOTUS making a ruling would be if a hypothetical Judiciary Reform Act affected the tenure of existing justices in some manner. For example, a bill that tried to shrink the Court immediately to 7 by removing the 2 junior most justices would get struck down unanimously.
Logged
Pollster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,756


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2020, 08:55:33 PM »

There's plenty of precedent for changing the size of the Court via legislation. About the only way I could see SCOTUS making a ruling would be if a hypothetical Judiciary Reform Act affected the tenure of existing justices in some manner. For example, a bill that tried to shrink the Court immediately to 7 by removing the 2 junior most justices would get struck down unanimously.

The hardball play here would be to remove the two junior-most justices, “bow to public pressure” and expand the court back to nine, but add two new Biden justices rather than re-adding Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2020, 09:16:44 PM »

There's plenty of precedent for changing the size of the Court via legislation. About the only way I could see SCOTUS making a ruling would be if a hypothetical Judiciary Reform Act affected the tenure of existing justices in some manner. For example, a bill that tried to shrink the Court immediately to 7 by removing the 2 junior most justices would get struck down unanimously.

The hardball play here would be to remove the two junior-most justices, “bow to public pressure” and expand the court back to nine, but add two new Biden justices rather than re-adding Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Which would be definitely unconstitutional and also unprecedented.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2020, 10:29:27 PM »

Which would be definitely unconstitutional and also unprecedented.
I’m not so sure about any of this, but most notably because I find it difficult for the Supreme Court to touch this case. Historically they’ve been very quiet, even when people tried to impeach them.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2020, 10:40:16 PM »

What if Congress passes something akin to Buttigieg's plan, which establishes that at least some of the new justices must be unanimously approved by the sitting justices? Can they strike that down on the grounds that it interferes too much with the independence of the Court by compelling justices to confirm new ones?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2020, 10:57:12 PM »

What if Congress passes something akin to Buttigieg's plan, which establishes that at least some of the new justices must be unanimously approved by the sitting justices? Can they strike that down on the grounds that it interferes too much with the independence of the Court by compelling justices to confirm new ones?

First off, any attempt to retroactively apply such a rule would clearly be unconstitutional.

But if struck down in total, it wouldn't be because of interference in Court independence, it would be because it would be an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Court, much as how in Marbury, the Court found it was unconstitutional to give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2020, 02:13:44 AM »

I think asking a question like this would be like asking about the Supreme Court upholding a law declaring someone President-for-Life (or perhaps the President himself declaring himself President-for-Life). At that point, we are no longer working within the bounds of the Constitution.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.