The bill would add four seats to the high court, bringing the total to 13 from the current nine. The bill is led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, subcommittee Chair Hank Johnson, and first-term Rep. Mondaire Jones. In the Senate, the bill is being championed by Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
Congressional Democrats plan to unveil legislation expanding the size of the Supreme Court on Thursday, according to three congressional sources familiar with the closely held measure.
The number of justices on the court, which is set by Congress, has fluctuated throughout the course of the nation’s history, reaching as many as 10 seats before settling on nine in 1869. In 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz suggested that if Hillary Clinton were elected, the Republican Senate should keep Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat empty, effectively bringing the number of justices down to eight.
Republicans currently hold six seats, while Democrats hold just three. Republicans were able to solidify control of the court under former President Donald Trump, after first refusing to advance Merrick Garland’s nomination under former President Barack Obama and then confirming Justice Neil Gorsuch after Trump’s election. Then after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died last September, Republicans threw out the procedures they had previously embraced and confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a matter of weeks.
After Trump’s nomination of Coney Barrett, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faced pressure to stop her confirmation by any means necessary. When those myriad options fell short and Coney Barrett was pushed through, the conversation turned to expanding the court.
“Not only do these extremist judges threaten more than a century of progressive achievements,” read a letter to Schumer by 20 New York elected officials, “they threaten to foreclose the possibility of any future progress under a Democratic administration.”
Downside_Up_ on April 15th, 2021 at 02:19 UTC »
I'd prefer a more stable, longterm solution - let each President appoint a set # of justices within 1 year of their inauguration, but not be able to fill any vacated seats unless the court falls below 9 active justices. Any case heard by the Supreme Court will be heard by a random allotment of 9 justices. Edit A few people have pointed out problems with random allotments, and I agree in retrospect. It may be best to either have every justice vote on every case, or have the Supreme Court decide as an independent branch how best to divy out case assignments to maintain 9 justices per case.
This way each President appoints the same number of justices, you remove some of the pressure to resign or not resign depending on who is the President, no President gets to assign 3 justices by a fluke of timing. It's equitable, represents the votes of the people, but doesn't create wild swings in judicial power that last decades.
A one-time expansion is a band-aid, temporary solution that doesn't solve the underlying problems, and is likely to be replicated by future Presidents in an arms race scenario.
Piphislu88 on April 15th, 2021 at 00:46 UTC »
If I could bet on this in a betting market I'd have maxed out the credit cards by now betting against it.
livingunique on April 14th, 2021 at 23:51 UTC »
Article III, Section I of the Constitution states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
There is no set number of justices in the Constitution.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established a Supreme Court with six justices. There have been nine, including a Chief Justice, since 1869.
I think it's time to expand the court again.