Supreme Court Packaging: A last-minute gambit from the left?

With President Trump planning to replace Judge Anthony Kennedy who is retiring, many on the left fear a Supreme Court that will judge them on a regular basis, even reversing historical decisions like the one in "Roe v. Wade".

they use every available means to prevent this.

One of the most extreme plans is the swearing-in of the courts – that is, creating more positions at the Supreme Court to change its political balance. The idea was suggested by, among others, liberal New Republic magazine, Ian Samuel and David Faris, an badociate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and author of "It's time to fight dirty."

Packing the Supreme Court, legally speaking, is not so difficult. As noted by Fox News legal badyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, while the Constitution creates a Supreme Court, "it says nothing about the number of judges". Therefore, changing the number of judges sitting in the High Court would be like any other legislation: It would require a majority in both houses of Congress and the signature of the president, or enough votes to override the veto of the President.

But, politically, it would not be easy. During the first 80 years of the existence of the Supreme Court, Congress often played with the number of judges – often to help or prevent the president from getting the court he wanted. Thus, the court had at first six members, then five, then seven, nine, then ten, then eight, eventually settling on nine with the Judicial Service Act of 1869. It has been nine since then. .

In the 1930s, however, President Franklin Roosevelt had a plan. Known as the 1937 Judicial Reform Bill, it would have allowed the President to appoint up to six other Supreme Court justices.

As Judge Napolitano explains, "the real reason was the persistent rejection for constitutional reasons of the New Deal legislation" – that is, FDR was dissatisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court, wanting to appoint its own judges to change that. In general, the public opposed the bill, and he died without voting in Congress. At about the same time, however, Judge Owen Roberts changed his position in favor of New Deal legislation; some believed that he was trying to avoid FDR projects for the court. Roberts' change became known as "the change in time that saved nine."

However, since the FDR plan failed, the very idea of ​​wrapping the courts was considered radical. But now, it seems that some on the left want to be radical. The problem is that, at the very least, they would need the Democrats to take back the House, the Senate and the Speaker. And once that happens, they will have to convince the party to take what would probably be a very unpopular move with the general public

The other problem is that two players can play this game. After all, in this moment, it is the Republicans who hold Congress and the White House. It 's not that the courthouse would be more popular if they tried it than if the Democrats made the attempt. As Napolitano notes, "if the Republican Congress wanted to give more nominations to Trump 10, they could increase the court to 19, [but] I think there would be an uproar comparable to when FDR tried to do that . "

Moreover, he notes, with the swearing-in of the court "you will end up with a Supreme Court that looks like a legislature at some point [both sides will] continue to extend it in order to overthrow what the previous court did. "[19659005Alorsqu'est-cequelesgensdegauchedevraientfaire?Biensûressayerdegagnerplusd'électionsbiensûrmaispeut-êtreaussi-etaussiceuxdedroitequisoutiennentlacourdeleurcôté-pourraientadopterunevisionàpluslongtermeexpliquelaCoursuprême”estunpendulequioscilledanslesdeuxsensAuxannéesEisenhoweretJFKetLBJnousavonseule[more progressive] Warren Court.C is just the nature of the system – the power changes."

He also notes that no one knows what will happen in the future, and "just because there is one"

Napolitano says he understands that there are "progressives impatient to reverse what happened in the Trump years" But believe that "thoughtful people who understand history"

But those who support the idea that Americans are in danger of losing their basic rights, therefore see extreme action if necessary. As the New Republic says, "desperate times call for desperate measures."

Will this idea take on magnitude? Maybe it depends on how desperate people are.