The Abiding Shame of ‘Packing’ the Supreme Court

by Josh Hammer

This is Third World Communist shit right here. pic.twitter.com/cEhNiVQy2K

— David Reaboi, Late Republic Nonsense (@davereaboi) April 15, 2021

In 2005, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) delivered a Senate floor speech about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s doomed 1937 plan to “pack” the U.S. Supreme Court. FDR’s plan would have permitted him to add six justices, immediately securing a pro-New Deal judicial majority. But “in an act of great courage, Roosevelt’s own party stood up against this institutional power grab,” Biden recounted 16 years ago. “They did not agree with the judicial activism of the Supreme Court, but they believed that Roosevelt was wrong to seek to defy established traditions as a way of stopping that activism.”
 
In fact, Biden actually understated the extent to which Senate Democrats rebuked the iconic Democratic president’s court-packing scheme. The Senate Judiciary Committee report issued at the time used eye-opening, clarion language: “Let us of the Seventy-fifth Congress, in words that will never be disregarded by any succeeding Congress, declare that we would rather have an independent Court, a fearless Court, a Court that will dare to announce its honest opinions in what it believes to be the defense of the liberties of the people, than a Court that, out of fear or sense of obligation to the appointing power, or factional passion, approves any measure we may enact. We are not the judges of the judges. We are not above the Constitution.” (Indeed, public policy aside, the constitutionality of partisan court-packing is questionable, as professor Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego argued in November.)
 
Roosevelt’s plan was soundly defeated on the floor of the Democrat-dominated Senate, and no president or political party since has had the temerity to resuscitate the ghost of court-packing. The Supreme Court has thus sat comfortably at nine members—eight associate justices and one chief justice—since the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869. But all that history will now be thrown out the window if the radical and shameless wing of an increasingly radical and shameless Democratic Party gets its way.
 
During the Democratic presidential primary, Biden hedged on endorsing court-packing. During the general election, he also dithered on the question of whether he supports the once-fringe idea, instead enduring many awkward interviews where he attempted to assuage curious interlocutors by telling them they’d find out his real thoughts on court-packing only after the election. Not exactly the hallmark of a principled and confident statesman, that.
 
Last week, Biden signed an executive order establishing a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, which will produce a report analyzing, most provocatively, “the membership and size of the Court.” The very establishment of the commission, regardless of its ultimate report, necessarily makes this the closest a president has come to court-packing since 1937. Even more egregious, earlier this week, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced a bill, the Judiciary Act of 2021, to add four seats and thus establish a 13-justice Supreme Court. In Nadler’s dystopian Newspeak, such a bill amounts not to “packing” the Court, but to “unpacking” it. Alas, we have come a long way since the scathing Senate Judiciary Committee report of 1937.
 

In a 50-50 Senate that includes Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), and still (as of now) retains the legislative filibuster, the Judiciary Act of 2021 is unlikely to advance very far. Indeed, for what little it may be worth, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already said she has “no intention to bring” the bill to the House floor. But the Democrats’ move on court-packing is still important for at least two reasons.
 
First, it provides the clearest structural evidence yet for the transparently political approach the Left takes to the judiciary. This has already been obvious for decades, as a jurisprudential matter; what is “living constitutionalism” if not the thinnest veneer imaginable for jurists to bestow legal legitimacy to favored progressive policy outcomes? The Right would be mistaken to respond to the present moment with trite appeals to a purportedly neutral legal proceduralism—far better to argue for a more morally informed and substantively cogent jurisprudence, such as what I call “common good originalism.”
 
Second, the current bluster can be seen as a power play to cow into submission those weak-kneed Republican-appointed justices, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, who profess above all else a concern for the Court’s ostensible “institutional integrity.”