James Foote
// The endless judicial debate //
The Judiciary Act of 2021, introduced by the Democrats, requested the expansion of the Supreme court to thirteen justices rather than the present nine. While the Constitution did not include the number of required judges, it is important for neither party to add justices. Rather, the lifetime commitment to be a member of the Supreme Court should be changed and adjusted to create a more equal system.
If the Democrats pack the Supreme Court, what will stop future politicians, Republicans or Democrats, from doing the same? Such an addition would turn the court into an even more politically differing system of government. In 2013, when talking about abolishing the filibuster, Senator Mitch McConnell said “the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” meaning that the filibuster assists the Democrats when they are in power but also works for the Republicans as well. Here, if Democrats add justices to the court to assist their political agenda, it will set a precedent for Republicans to do the same.
On the flip side, one could say that the Democrats are getting the short end of the stick due to President Barack Obama being denied his right to appoint a new justice. When Justice Scalia died in 2016, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Obama from appointing a new justice. Some would argue that because of this the Democrats should be able to add another justice, but this addition would create an even number of justices when an odd number is needed to break ties. If the Democrats were to add a Judge to the court, future Republicans and Democrats may do the same, making the court grow larger during every administration.
A change to the original Supreme Court rules is necessary, including at the very least a removal of the lifetime obligation. Having lifetime terms in a crucial role places too much importance on individual justices and their appointments. Instead, Supreme Court Justice should set a term limit for 12 years, with new justices coming into the court every three to four years. Allowing almost every administration to appoint one Justice will make the judicial system more representative of the current political climate. This new change would diffuse the high-stakes appointment process because each publicly elected administration will receive equal representation. Otherwise, situations like the Senate’s blockade of Obama’s nominee may happen again, and the political agenda of one administration will continue to persist in the courts for generations.
Overall, the proposed idea for packing the Supreme Court is unreasonable, but changing term limits is a necessity. Removing the lifetime obligation allows for more political voices in the court, thus creating more equal representation of the people’s everchanging will.
The nine current Supreme Court Justices. (USA Today)