Is It Time To Expand The Supreme Court? l FiveThirtyEight

There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says the Supreme Court must have nine justices — that’s just the way it’s been for more than 150 years. But recently, some Democrats have proposed adding justices to the court. Here, senior writer and legal reporter Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux asks legal experts and historians to weigh in: Should Congress expand the Supreme Court?

[realmless]

"I want to grow the court to get my policies through" just means that now the court is controlled by whoever the dominant party is.

[silverhawk]

The difficult thing to reconcile is that Supreme Court Justices are intended to be impartial, but our political parties have incentives to nominate a clear partisan when possible. I don't see how to resolve that.

[merrymachiavelli]

The one of the main reasons the courts have so much power is that is that partisanship in the other branches of government (and American society at large) is so extreme, which is getting in the way of legislating. The American Supreme Court seems to constantly be answering questions that are more about social value judgements (which ought to be handled by the executive and legislature) than how to apply the law in a fair manner and resolve points of ambiguity.

Even many things that touch on the constitution should be debated on merits and resolved by amendments, if they are really that controversial.

[petitnicollas]

The republicans could do the same thing in the future.

[Flo_Henk]

When progressive Democrats accused the Polish government of authoritarian tendencies for years now due to Polish President Duda's party its actions in regards to their supreme court but equally want to pull the same kinds of tricks with the U.S. supreme court...

[deathfox]

After today, the idea of impartiality in federal judges has gone away.

[neonbunnies]

You know it's bad when the prescription to a bad problem is another bad problem and hoping everything works out

[dennisboznango]

Is the rationale for expanding anything more than Democrats not willing to lose under the existing rules?

[matrixace_]

"Limit the court power" - THAT IS exactly why the conservative justices are doing it. Abortion is not a right that is written in the constitution of the United States. Roe V Wade overreaches the court's power and we must return the discussion about the legalities to the people's elected representatives.

[theuglykwan]

Poland destroyed their judiciary last decade. Don't go down that route. There are improvements the court needs but due to the high bar needed, most stand no chance. Reform the US house to clean up gerrymandering so it is more representative. Enact some term limits for congress. Control campaign finance.

Then maybe congress can more actively legislate without being so partisan . that would allow them to check the court instead of all things punted towards the court and letting them have the last word.

[DontTreadOnMyLiberty]

Checks and balances...saying that the court should be packed because one party has more influence than another is no different than saying we need to add more senators or representatives because one party has the majority in Congress.

[matthew_roalk]

5:15 - ah yes, that’s what we have... a strictly nonpartisan court. Nothing else. Is that why Mitch wanted to wait for the general election? Oh wait. This is a stupid counter argument imo

[PaxAmericana]

This argument is DOA in the senate. Going on about it might feed the Democrat base but the neither Senate nor the American public writ large is against this idea. It’s obviously a hyper partisan move that makes the situation only worst not better.

[charlieherring]

“When we’re losing, change the rules!” ~ the motto of the democrat party.

[waspwrap]

5:47 well since they serve for life, and since we have gerrymandering, along with an electoral system that is extremely faulty, it is not as easy to accomplish as you claim. and if the losing side is able to do these things that you claim is so easy to repair by elections, who’s to say this losing side can’t win again and do more stuff.

[lonmar]

the precedent it sets if you add another 2 justices is difficult. All that does is makes it so that every time the White House/senate changes control from D to R, or vice versa, more justices will be added to make sure they have control of the court. making it bigger and bigger and more and more partisan.
I could understand a term limit, or a retirement age or something in that ilk. But not court packing.

[mooseears]

I think term limits on Supreme Court justices would be a better idea. New justice once every 2 years, unless an existing one dies. The full term of a Supreme Court justice would be 18 years

[Awww]

When FDR tried packing the court, it angered both Republicans and many of his fellow Democrats. Even his first vice president John Nance Garner turned against him. He wanted to increase the number of justices to 12 by adding another justice for each one who was 70 or older. However, 12 is also an even number, which is susceptible to ties. It could be that FDR would've wanted an even number of justices so that he could be the tie-breaker.

[gigachadgaming]

The court should not expand because it currently favors my politics. if it did not favor my politics, it should then be expanded

[blasi]

Court is not a political tool. Do as the rest of the world. Make the court 100.% non-political