Since its inception in 1789, the Supreme Court has been a critical part of the American system of checks and balances that holds the government accountable to the American people. The Court has the power to strike down any law it deems unconstitutional, which prevents any infringements on the rights of citizens.
Former U.S. President William Howard Taft said, “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court is forever.” Or so it was thought, until recent years. Following former President Donald Trump’s P’00 term, in which he appointed three Supreme Court Justices, some politicians revitalized the idea of adding Justices to the Supreme Court — an act known as “court-packing.” Such a move would undermine the independence of the Supreme Court and remove accountability to the Judicial and Executive Branches of government.
In Federalist No. 51, James Madison emphasized the importance of the separation of powers within the federal government. Specifically, he said that the Justices appointed to the Supreme Court “must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority confirming them.”
And this was not without reason: if Supreme Court Justices are reliant on Congress, they lose their ability to both impartially hold that branch of government accountable for its actions and strike down laws that it deems unconstitutional, in fear of backlash. This is specifically why the U.S. Constitution does not allow changes to the salaries of the Justices during their terms — the framers do not want other government officials to influence the judiciary.
Allowing additions to the Supreme Court enables whichever party that controls Congress to decide the political breakdown of the Court. If Congress doesn’t appreciate the six conservative and three liberal judges on the court? No problem. They can add four more liberal judges using their senate majority, and the Court will now rule in favor of the majority party every time. This places the Court at the mercy of whichever party holds the Senate.
There are a few measures that can be taken to prevent court-packing and mitigate other existing issues: the first step is to ensure that the number of Supreme Court seats does not exceed nine. This can be codified into law by passing H.J. Res. 95, also known as the Keep Nine Amendment, to the US Constitution. This amendment has the support of numerous congressmen on both sides of the aisle, and the two-thirds threshold required to overturn an amendment would make it impossible to reverse without substantial bipartisan support.
There are other reforms that can be made to the Supreme Court that would move the Court closer to the vision that the founding fathers initially dreamed up. One of the issues the Court currently faces is political partisanship. Ever since the number of votes required to end debate in the Senate dropped to 51, there have been multiple partisan appointments of Supreme Court Justices. This is evident in the 6-3 conservative lean of the Supreme Court today. If certain Senators are unhappy with a nominee, they can filibuster and prevent the Senate from voting. If the number of Senators required to end a filibuster is raised back to 60, bipartisan support would be required to select a Supreme Court Justice. This would allow for less partisan and more clear-minded voices on the Supreme Court.
Another popular solution to the partisanship of the court is Supreme Court Term Limits. The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2020 would give justices 18-year staggered term limits and require Presidents to appoint a Justice every two years. Because the presidency tends to alternate parties, a balance in the Supreme Court is far more likely with this policy. The proposal would also remove the concern regarding Supreme Court Justices resigning in time for a President of their party to appoint someone with similar political beliefs. A notable case of this was when former Chief Justice Earl Warren resigned under Lyndon B. Johnson, fearing that a Republican may take office and be the one to replace him if he was to die during their term.
Regardless of how you believe the Supreme Court should be reformed, it is clear that adding Justices to the Supreme Court would accomplish nothing but destabilize the judiciary and offset the powers within the American federal government. As Irving Kaufamnn said, “The Supreme Court’s only armor is the cloak of public trust.” It is up to us to protect the sanctity of the court and the great experiment that is the American system of governance.
