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.
An Article V convention could circumvent the House and Senate if this is something that becomes popular enough. I wonder if there would be enough states that would ratify though. I can think of 15 unlikely to ratify: ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, CA, OR, WA, HI and IL. At least three of those would have to ratify, assuming all other states ratify as well.
It has no hope but get Dems on record voting against it.
The Court is not working fine. It's acting as a super legislature when the Constitution, Article I, Section 1, says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress . . .."
This means NO legislative powers are granted to either the Courts or the Executive. Thus, the Courts do not have the power to invalidate laws.
The Supreme Court is power-drunk out of control. E.g., Obergefell v. Hodges , among many others. QED.
The author obviously didn’t read what she wrote before she she send it Townhall.com, otherwise she would have noticed the mistake and corrected it. If I notice a mistake or typo I correct it, because mistakes and typos do happen.
Agreed. Not working fine.
I think Mark Levin said it best.
The Roberts court is “A disaster. Rudderless.”
A very good idea that would win instant acceptance in the States.
So important, yet sleepy stink finger gropey Joe Biden is not being asked if he will pack the court if he wins.
Yeah, I was thinking that.
We’re about a likely to get such an amendment protecting the Supreme Court voted in as Nance is to get her ‘sick president’ bill.
More ridiculous posturing by a Senator doing what they all do best - dishing out BS.
You seriously think there are 67 votes in the Senate and 291 votes in the House to send this to the States?
There will be 291 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate to pass this Amendment approximately...never.
The Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to set the size of the Supreme Court through legislation.
Therefore, a Bill (presuming it becomes a law) expanding the size of the Court (or reducing it) could hardly be said to be "destroying the Constitution", since such a law would be perfectly Constitutional.
What you are saying is what I am seeing and what WE are experiencing, typos and errors because we no longer put 'copy' into the in-basket of another pair of eyes for proofing! The internet is a new paradigm, largely self-editing and we see, all too often, why the old process, for all of its flaws, had some very good things as well.
Any writer worth reading is enthusiastic about getting something written and out to where it will be read. If the writer had the abilities of the second coming then all would be roses! Instead we all flub and err and coat our screens with white-out (should I capitalize this?) WHEN we have the time and are contentious and love the language and ..., you get the idea!
My GRIPE is that we, as in ALL OF US, have let the medium of the internet lead us into bad habits of fact errors (here), homonym errors (to/two/too) and such that would make any of my 9th Grade Teachers pour red ink and don't get me started about someone like Harold Ross (New Yorker Magazine founder 1925).
Now returning to my cave, muttering and wincing!
They need to add if it is OK for the court to rule while vacancies are being filled.
First, Jim Noble, I didn’t claim that setting the size of the SCOTUS is “destroying the Constitution.”
The Demonicrat political party seeks to destroy the Constitution by packing the SCOTUS with so many leftist justices, who will pervert the Constitution with their radical anti-American socialist views, that any conservative view will only appear, if at all, in minority opinions.
-PJ
Democrats will vote against it, so it won’t pass.
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.