CLOSINGS: View Closings

Why history shows 'court packing' isn't extreme

Article Image

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has avoided taking a stance on the issue of adding seats to the Supreme Court since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spurred a contentious nomination process. Biden's deputy campaign manager discusses the issue with CNN's Jake Tapper.

Posted: Oct 12, 2020 6:31 PM
Updated: Oct 12, 2020 6:31 PM

At the presidential and vice presidential debates, Donald Trump and Mike Pence asked their opponents the same question: Will you pack the courts?

The symmetry of their approach shows they believe a focus on "court packing" could turn their ailing campaign around. And they got a quick assist from media outlets who began hammering the Biden campaign about the issue.

But "court packing" — as both a phrase and a historical precedent — obscures more than it reveals about the current debate over the size of the Supreme Court. That's because the parallel to President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to change the court's size don't fit the current situation, and the broader history of court expansion bolsters the case for expanding the court now.

Expansion of the court rests in the hands of Congress, a right it has exercised several times in the nation's history. Rather than being "illicit" or "tyranny," as conservative critics have charged, it is an ordinary power of Congress granted by the Constitution. Over the course of the 19th century, the court fluctuated from five to 10 members, ultimately settling at nine. In many cases, the changes reflected fluctuations in the number of federal court districts. When districts were added or removed, the number of seats on the court changed with them. (For the record, there are currently 13 federal districts.)

Mixed in with these relatively neutral changes were more politically motivated ones. In fact, the first change to the Supreme Court came as part of the "midnight judges" scandal of 1801, when Federalists doubled the number of district judges and shrank the size of the Supreme Court from six to five after they lost the election of 1800, hoping to install as many as their allies as possible before Thomas Jefferson became president.

Because this was an act of Congress, Jefferson's legislative allies were able to simply repeal the law in 1802, bumping the Supreme Court back up to six seats.

And then, of course, there was the famous attempt to pack the court in 1937. Franklin Roosevelt, irritated that a conservative court kept striking down legislation aimed at reviving the economy during the Great Depression, proposed adding a slew of new justices under the guise of court reform. The effort technically failed — Congress never passed the legislation — though the court became more amenable to New Deal legislation in the sessions that followed.

In the case of both Adams and Roosevelt, the system broadly worked to check political power grabs. Congress rectified the court's size in 1802 and rejected its expansion in 1937.

Today, the situation is quite different. First, the call for a change to the court's size is not a response to specific rulings that Democrats disagree with. There were few widespread calls for an expanded court following the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, which vastly expanded gun-ownership rights, Shelby Co. v. Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, or even Citizens United v. FEC, a ruling so universally reviled by voters that a 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found even 76% of Republicans disagreed with it (85% of Democrats and 81% of independents did, too — though many Republican officeholders welcomed the influx of money into campaigns).

What's really driving the renewed interest in court expansion is something else: the politicized change in the size of the court has already happened. It occurred in 2016, when a Republican-controlled Senate allowed the court to shrink to eight justices. Not only did the Senate fail to fulfill its constitutional duty to vote on the president's nominee, some Senate Republicans were prepared to keep the court at eight if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. Sen. Ted Cruz and the late Sen. John McCain both floated that possibility in October 2016, with Cruz musing, "There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices."

The refusal to even hold a hearing for a presidential nominee was more than a norm violation — it was an abdication of constitutional responsibility. And because it was one that worked out well for Republicans, there has been no reckoning.

Until now. The Biden campaign has not yet weighed in on expanding the court, but there is a groundswell of support for it from Democrats who believe it is the only way to remedy what happened in 2016. That makes a more accurate precedent for the court-expansion debate not the 1937 attempt, but 1802, when Congress returned the court to six seats after Adams attempted to take a seat from Jefferson and pack the lower courts with his allies.

These historical precedents help put the current debate in a more accurate context than blanket condemnations of "court packing." But they should not be thought of as straightjackets constraining the bounds of debate. Historical precedent can serve as a guide to how people have considered these issues in the past, but they are not an excuse to ignore the unique conditions of the current crisis: The Republicans' smash-and-grab approach to judicial nominations threatens the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary and weakens the rule of law.

Should Democrats win the election, they will have to fix this, too. That likely means court expansion, but also a raft of judicial reforms ranging from Supreme Court term limits to narrowing its jurisdiction. It likely means coming to terms with a reality most Americans have never really confronted: The court has never been apolitical, and even with reforms, there will be fights over its composition and power — fights Democrats must be willing to take up.

Minnesota Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 295001

Reported Deaths: 3535
CountyCasesDeaths
Hennepin624331107
Ramsey26238493
Anoka20851224
Dakota20527189
Stearns13245106
Washington13220111
St. Louis8141108
Scott798154
Wright720338
Olmsted639934
Sherburne552241
Clay473356
Carver443213
Blue Earth395813
Rice393335
Kandiyohi378719
Crow Wing344731
Nobles301429
Chisago29799
Otter Tail288820
Benton285847
Winona266629
Mower248523
Douglas242235
Polk238223
Morrison224027
Lyon206711
Beltrami202517
McLeod198511
Becker194015
Goodhue190628
Steele18336
Itasca179123
Isanti179016
Todd173912
Carlton170414
Nicollet154925
Freeborn14795
Mille Lacs145131
Le Sueur141111
Waseca135911
Cass133310
Brown131215
Pine12788
Meeker11638
Roseau11074
Hubbard107523
Martin105520
Wabasha9941
Redwood87518
Dodge8230
Chippewa8157
Watonwan8104
Cottonwood7942
Renville77322
Sibley7564
Wadena7476
Aitkin71729
Rock7149
Pipestone69618
Houston6534
Fillmore6510
Yellow Medicine61511
Pennington6137
Murray5623
Kanabec55713
Swift5448
Faribault5251
Pope5071
Clearwater4817
Stevens4813
Jackson4581
Marshall4508
Lake3916
Unassigned38659
Koochiching3675
Wilkin3605
Lac qui Parle3513
Lincoln3331
Norman3307
Big Stone2962
Mahnomen2834
Grant2566
Red Lake2033
Kittson2027
Traverse1391
Lake of the Woods941
Cook630

Iowa Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 223783

Reported Deaths: 2330
CountyCasesDeaths
Polk33166333
Linn13991164
Scott1100384
Black Hawk10795134
Woodbury10255124
Johnson940036
Dubuque913491
Story674921
Dallas629057
Pottawattamie617069
Sioux366725
Webster357033
Cerro Gordo349644
Marshall346345
Clinton322840
Buena Vista302214
Muscatine282668
Des Moines282419
Warren276411
Plymouth270641
Wapello251571
Jones228413
Jasper214643
Marion202919
Lee199416
Carroll196422
Bremer192612
Henry18107
Crawford174115
Benton167418
Tama153340
Jackson143013
Delaware141021
Washington138214
Dickinson135810
Boone134811
Mahaska126127
Wright12226
Buchanan115410
Clay11504
Hardin114010
Page11144
Hamilton11009
Clayton10875
Harrison106629
Cedar106213
Calhoun10607
Kossuth10426
Floyd103916
Mills10297
Fayette102210
Lyon10188
Butler9916
Poweshiek98213
Winneshiek95812
Iowa93012
Winnebago91323
Hancock8547
Louisa84916
Grundy84611
Chickasaw8424
Sac8407
Cherokee8214
Cass80222
Allamakee79011
Appanoose77910
Mitchell7794
Humboldt7635
Shelby76111
Union7576
Emmet74924
Guthrie74115
Franklin73421
Jefferson7062
Madison6764
Palo Alto6474
Unassigned6470
Keokuk5777
Pocahontas5572
Howard5489
Greene5170
Osceola5171
Ida48113
Clarke4774
Taylor4603
Davis4548
Montgomery45011
Monroe43912
Adair4298
Monona4272
Fremont3553
Van Buren3545
Worth3540
Lucas3226
Decatur3160
Audubon2952
Wayne2957
Ringgold2082
Adams1652
Rochester
Clear
37° wxIcon
Hi: 49° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 29°
Mason City
Clear
39° wxIcon
Hi: 52° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 31°
Albert Lea
Clear
39° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 32°
Feels Like: 35°
Austin
Clear
39° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 31°
Feels Like: 34°
Charles City
Clear
41° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 28°
Feels Like: 34°
A Sunny and Mild Saturday Expected
KIMT Radar
KIMT Eye in the sky

Latest Video

Image

Sidelined in quarantine: Coach Fennelly talks about his experience away from the game

Image

Here Comes Santa Claus Drive-Thru

Image

Here Comes Santa Claus Drive-Thru

Image

Santa Claus Visits Rochester to Lead Drive-Thru Parade

Image

Aaron's Friday Evening Forecast

Image

Increased demand for real Christmas trees

Image

Santa visits Rochester for drive-thru parade

Image

Salvation Army needs bell ringers

Image

Search for man stalking women

Image

Downtown Alliance for shopping locally

Community Events