I must confess to mixed feelings about it, though. On balance, I think it's an option to keep on the table.
If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.
Stacking the Court
By JEAN EDWARD SMITH
Huntington, W.Va.
WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.
The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues. As Chief Justice John Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, the court’s authority extends only to legal issues.
When the court overreaches, the Constitution provides checks and balances. In 1805, after persistent political activity by Justice Samuel Chase, Congress responded with its power of impeachment. Chase was acquitted, but never again did he step across the line to mingle law and politics. After the Civil War, when a Republican Congress feared the court might tamper with Reconstruction in the South, it removed those questions from the court’s appellate jurisdiction.
But the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel has been increasing or decreasing its membership. The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Adding seats to the Supreme
Adding seats to the Supreme Court would be incredibly risky. Although a minority during the 1930s, Republicans in Congress along with their conservative allies in the Democratic party engineered a successful backlash against no less a formidable figure than FDR on the basis of his "court packing" plan. I don't know if any of the Democratic candidates would take this risk if elected. Hillary certainly wouldn't. I can just imagine how conservatives would respond if she merely mentioned it.
The alternative is more risky
But if things go well, there will be a dem president and a dem congress. It could work.
I think the alternative (having an ultra conservative SC, drag us back to the 18th century) is much more risky than the political risk of suggesting a change.
But I worry about hillary (or any other president) willing to let these ultraneocon judges give them supreme power, while selling the rest of us down the river.
This is starting to look like a rerun of the Roman republic/empire transition.