Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Republicans Move to Protect the Supreme Court With Constitutional Amendment
Towmhall.com ^ | October 22, 2020 | Jenny Beth Martin

Posted on 10/22/2020 8:45:59 AM PDT by Kaslin

Every now and then, a man, a mission, and a moment all come together. Such is now the case with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who this week introduced, with several cosponsors, S.J.Res. 76, a constitutional amendment to hold the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine.

It’s an axiom of conservatism that “If it is not necessary to change, then it is necessary not to change.” In other words, in more modern language, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But what if it is broke? Or, worse still, what if you know that something working fine now is about to become broken? Doesn’t it make sense to take steps to prevent the imminent breakdown?

That’s what Cruz’s effort seeks to address. The Court is working fine now, but Cruz – and anyone else paying attention – know it’s about to be broken if Joe Biden wins the presidency and Democrats recapture control of the Senate.

For more than 150 years, the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been set, by law, at nine – “the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices,” in the words of the Judiciary Act of 1969. Through Reconstruction, two world wars, the Great Depression, the New Deal, the Cold War, the Great Society, the Reagan Revolution, 9/11 and its aftermath, the Great Recession, and now the Trump presidency and everything in between, almost all of us have agreed that nine was the appropriate number of justices on the Supreme Court. Almost all of us have agreed that this structure was the best way to preserve the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, and protect our constitutional liberties.

(One time, though, one of us did not agree. That was back in 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt, upset that the Supreme Court kept declaring unconstitutional key elements of his New Deal agenda, promoted the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, otherwise known as “Roosevelt’s court packing scheme.” That bill – which would have expanded the Court by adding up to six new justices – was so unpopular that Roosevelt couldn’t get it through the Senate, even though his own party controlled the body by the lopsided margin of 76-16.)

But now, in the wake of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Amy Coney Barrett nominated as her replacement, radical leftists and many Democrats want to blow up the agreement. Upset that they believe they will be in the ideological minority on the Court, they want to “pack” the Court, by adding new, additional seats that can be filled with new, liberal justices, so as to dilute the influence of the justices already there and make possible Supreme Court approval of their radical agenda.

The American people oppose this. According to a new New York Times/Sienna College poll of likely voters, “58 percent said Democrats should not look to increase the size of the Supreme Court,” while “just 31 percent said they were in favor of court-packing.” Given the more than 150 years of stability on the Court, that essentially 2-to-1 opposition to packing the court should not be surprising.

Enter Cruz and his proposal. The constitutional amendment is as simple as can be: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.” Pass it with a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate, then get it ratified by 38 states, and our worries about court-packing will be over.

Within 48 hours of introduction, the resolution had already acquired ten cosponsors, several of whom are in the closing stretches of competitive reelection campaigns. For them, the resolution offers a chance to drive a clear contrast with their liberal challengers, who are now placed between a rock and a hard place, forced to choose between the relatively small group of liberal base voters who want to pack the Court, and the larger group of voters who reject Court packing.

Thus, Cruz’s effort has the benefit of being both good policy and good politics. The Senate should find time in these last days before the election to allow senators to vote on this critical issue. America is watching.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: courtpacking; supremecourt; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 10/22/2020 8:45:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Lets see this one get passed!!

Go, Ted, go!


2 posted on 10/22/2020 8:46:47 AM PDT by Jane Long (Praise God, from whom ALL blessings flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The constitutional amendment is as simple as can be: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.” Pass it with a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate, then get it ratified by 38 states, and our worries about court-packing will be over.

This could be accomplished in a week (assuming all state leg are in session). But it won’t


3 posted on 10/22/2020 8:47:35 AM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The things our Founding Fathers did not think to do because they never thought they had to. They never envisioned a country populated with petulant children.


4 posted on 10/22/2020 8:47:43 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wny

That raises an interesting question, and frankly I have no idea what the answer would be.

Let’s presume Biden were to win and expand the court to 16 justices.

Then sometime a year or two later the 38th. state votes to ratify.

Does the Court immediately go back down to nine? Or are the additional justices grandfathered in? And if it does go back to nine who decides which seven justices get the heave-ho?

Interesting and I have no idea on any of it.


5 posted on 10/22/2020 8:49:55 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wny

A two-thirds vote of the House? I don’t think so.


6 posted on 10/22/2020 8:54:33 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The left hates President Trump most because he is a truth seeker and is on the Side of the Angels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Please read how Jackson, the founding Democrat President stacked the Supreme Court, his appointment of Taney from Maryland who became the longest reigning chief Justice, and how the Democrat stacked Supreme Court led to the Dred Scott decision and the Civil War.

History is trying to repeat itself.


7 posted on 10/22/2020 8:54:41 AM PDT by tired&retired (Blessings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Never get 2/3’s in either the House and Senate.

D’s will line up against it.


8 posted on 10/22/2020 8:55:02 AM PDT by PeteB570 ( Islam is the sea in which the Terrorist Shark swims. The deeper the sea the larger the shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

GOOD!!! Let the American people SEE the DEMOCRATS vote AGAINST IT!


9 posted on 10/22/2020 8:58:55 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion....... The HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2/3 vote of the Hiouse and Seante is required.


10 posted on 10/22/2020 9:01:33 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

yep, that is the point. Put them on record now so we can take back the house.


11 posted on 10/22/2020 9:02:33 AM PDT by Phillyred (Kieran Hussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

It shouldn’t take an amendment anymore the it should take a wall but unfortunately these times make us have to stay one step ahead of the left.


12 posted on 10/22/2020 9:05:14 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“They never envisioned a country populated with petulant children.”

Well said, FRiend!


13 posted on 10/22/2020 9:05:26 AM PDT by Nothingburger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

With all of the objections to George III in the Decloaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers could scarcely imagine the satanic and murderous evil of the Demonicrat political party seeking to destroy the Constitution of the United States.


14 posted on 10/22/2020 9:05:27 AM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Not just that they “never thought they had to”, it’s that they never conceived the possibility - much like a “right to vehicular travel” wasn’t considered because they couldn’t imagine governments would punish people for traveling without permission to use certain vehicles.


15 posted on 10/22/2020 9:15:07 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Interesting how those so interested in workERS are so disinterested in workING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
A two-thirds vote of the House? I don’t think so.

It'll just put everybody on the record.

16 posted on 10/22/2020 9:16:22 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
... two-thirds vote of the House

LOL!

17 posted on 10/22/2020 9:23:41 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
For crying out loud, is there a copyeditor anywhere still working?

For more than 150 years, the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been set, by law, at nine – “the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices,” in the words of the Judiciary Act of 1969.

Not 1969, *1869*!

18 posted on 10/22/2020 9:23:47 AM PDT by SES1066 (2020, VOTE your principles, VOTE your history, VOTE FOR ALL AMERICANS, VOTE colorblind!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

“Never get 2/3’s in either the House and Senate.

D’s will line up against it.”

Agreed. The only other way to pass the amendment would be through a Constitutional Convention, where the States would bypass Congress.


19 posted on 10/22/2020 9:27:09 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
The things our Founding Fathers did not think to do because they never thought they had to. They never envisioned a country populated with petulant children.

Yes, and they never thought to add anything about abortion or gay marriage either. To them. a woman killing her own child was simply unthinkable and so it's not in the Constitution. Likewise, a man wanting to stick his d*** in another man's a** was also unthinkable, so it's not in the Constitution either.

However, the Founding Fathers knew enough to know they didn't know it all, so they wrote that things not in the Constitution should be left to the states. I hope ACB will help put these awful things back to the states and, hopefully, someday, they can have their own Constitutional Amemndments banning them.

20 posted on 10/22/2020 9:28:12 AM PDT by libertylover (Election 2020: Make America Great Again or Burn it to the Ground. Choose one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson