Proponents of court-packing argue that adding more judges
to our nation’s judiciary is the magical solution to urgent problems, and even
paint the picture that doing so is an act of goodwill. But far from being a
necessity, court-packing is a brazen power-grab by one political party to fix
the number of Supreme Court justices or federal judges to get the political
results they want.
And when we look at the history of court-packing across the
world, there’s no way around it: Court-packing is a dangerous scheme with
severe implications that would erase freedom and rights for future generations
and destroy America’s constitutional order.
To equip you—and all Americans—in exposing
the lie and the radical plan to overthrow America’s court system, here are four
common (or rather, bogus) court-packing claims debunked with facts and logic.
1. Myth: The Supreme Court has been stolen.
Fact: The Supreme Court currently has nine
highly qualified, legitimately appointed and confirmed justices. The far Left
just doesn’t like some of them.
The reason court-packing advocates say the Supreme Court
was “stolen” is because they disagree with the political party and the
president who appointed the latest three justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett
Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett). For instance, they claimed that Justice
Barrett’s confirmation happened too quickly. But as First Liberty President and
CEO Kelly Shackelford has noted, justices have been confirmed in the same
fashion nearly thirty (30) times. In fact, the late Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, whom Justice Barrett replaced, was confirmed in a similar time frame.
Ironically, stealing the Supreme Court is
exactly what would happen if the coup attempt to add two, four or even six more
justices were to succeed.
2. Myth: Court-packing has popular support.
Fact: Court-packing is widely unpopular—and
historically has been within both parties.
Polls conducted in the last few years show the majority of
Americans oppose court-packing.
- In
2020, a New York Times-Siena College poll found that fifty-eight
percent (58%) of likely voters opposed packing the Supreme Court.
- In
2019, Rasmussen polls found that only twenty-seven percent (27%)
of Americans favor packing the Supreme Court with additional justices.
What’s more, opposition to court-packing is prevalent
across the political spectrum.
Here are some quotes from several politicians and prominent
figures on both sides of the political aisle, starting with the current
president:
- President
Joe Biden (D):
In 1983: “President Roosevelt clearly had the
right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a
proposal to pack the court. … But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible,
terrible mistake to make.”
In 2020: “I’m not a fan of court packing.”
- Ted
Cruz (R-TX)
In 2020: “Packing the Court means one very
specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political
outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power.”
- Joe
Manchin (D-WV)
In 2020: “I want to allay those fears, I want
to rest those fears for you right now because when they talk about whether it
be packing the courts, or ending the filibuster, I will not vote to do that.”
- Lindsey
Graham (R-SC)
In 2020: “I can’t think of a more destabilizing
event for America than changing the number of [justices] on the Supreme Court
every election cycle, because it becomes a winner take all for the Court.”
- Jon
Ossoff (D-GA):
In 2020: “We shouldn’t expand the Supreme Court
just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.”
- Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933 – 2020):
In 2019: “If anything would make the court look
partisan…it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to
enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the
way we want them to.'”
The truth is both parties have long
opposed court-packing, and the sudden flip by a select group of elites on the
Democratic side on this issue exposes this scheme for what it really is: a
barefaced power grab.
3. Myth: Court-packing is a routine procedure.
Fact: Changes to the size of the Supreme Court
are very rare in America’s history, and the few partisan attempts at court-packing
have been failures.
Congress has changed the number of Supreme Court justices
only a total of seven times in American history. The radical Left distorts this
fact to make you think court-packing is normal. But in nearly 250 years and 120
Congresses, the seven prior changes (many of them due to
workloads and the addition of states to the Republic) do not offer a
justification for packing the Court today. On the contrary, the seven changes
show how rare court-packing is in America. What’s more, the
number of Supreme Court justices hasn’t changed at all since
1869—that’s over 150 years!
4. Myth: Court-packing will save democracy.
Fact: Court packing will crush civil
liberties by making the Supreme Court a partisan tool of whoever holds power.
Using a baseball metaphor, Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Roberts once said of a judge’s role, “It’s my job to call balls and strikes,
and not to pitch or bat.”
What would happen if several partisan justices were added
to the Supreme Court—justices who were instructed to “pitch” and “bat” for the
team that appointed them? The Supreme Court would become an extension of the
party currently in power. The fundamental principle of the “separation of
powers” would be destroyed.
If more and more partisan judges are added to courts every
election cycle, those in the minority—people who don’t agree with the current
ruling party—would have their freedom squashed under the weight of a rigged
judiciary. Civil liberties like religious freedom would have no stable
protection.
Far from saving the principles of our democratic republic,
court-packing would lead to the demolition of constitutional rights—just like
it happened in other nations, such as Venezuela and Argentina.
###
Liberty
McArtor is a freelance writer in the state of Texas. As a contributor to FLI
Insider, published by First Liberty Institute. Liberty covered various topics,
including historical articles about the role of faith during the American
founding and religious liberty in the military. Liberty earned her bachelor’s
degree in journalism from Patrick Henry College and previously worked as a
radio producer in Washington, D.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment