Court Packing: The Late Justice Antonin Scalia Used To Deny

Court Packing The Late Justice Antonin Scalia Used To Deny That The

Court packing, the ongoing debate about expanding or restructuring the Supreme Court, remains a highly contentious issue in American politics. The late Justice Antonin Scalia traditionally denied that the Supreme Court was inherently political, asserting that justices aimed to render impartial decisions to the best of their ability. However, critics have long argued that the court is as political as any other institution in the political landscape, comparing its partisanship to the pope's religious authority. This tension is heightened by the way justices debate amongst themselves and with law clerks, lobby for certain outcomes, and seek to build consensus for majority opinions.

In the judicial process, those dissenting from majority rulings often write dissenting opinions, which serve as formal disagreements that may influence future legal debates. Conversely, concurring opinions are written when justices agree with the outcome but for different legal reasons. While dissenting opinions can sometimes lay the groundwork for future legal developments, their influence is limited due to the court's reliance on precedent—prior decisions that guide current rulings. This reliance on precedent ensures stability but can also entrench existing legal interpretations, making change challenging.

Public confidence in the partisan nature of the court has reached new heights amid increasing polarization within the American political system. The process of confirming Supreme Court justices exemplifies this divide and often involves contentious, politically charged battles. One notable example is the fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment in 2018, which was marked by intense partisan disagreements. Similarly, the delays and debates over President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016—who was a moderate candidate—highlight the politicized nature of Supreme Court confirmations. Republicans refused to consider Garland, citing the proximity to the end of Obama's term, aiming to prevent a Democratic appointment. Conversely, in 2020, they swiftly confirmed Amy Coney Barrett just weeks before the presidential election, demonstrating strategic timing to cement a conservative majority.

Justices also strategically consider their retirements to influence the ideological composition of the court. Retirement timing often aligns with political opportunities to appoint ideologically aligned justices, further politicizing the process. Despite this overt partisanship, some justices maintain the appearance of impartiality, yet the process itself remains deeply polarized, as evidenced by recent confirmation battles.

The question of whether there is a better way to manage the court’s composition has gained prominence, particularly among Democrats who seek to expand the court—commonly referred to as "court packing"—to offset the conservative majority. This idea involves increasing the number of justices to include more liberals, effectively balancing the ideological composition. Historical attempts at court packing include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed plan during the 1930s, which aimed to enlarge the court to sustain New Deal programs that some justices had initially opposed. Although Roosevelt’s effort was ultimately unsuccessful and controversial, it demonstrated the potential political leverage that court size could wield.

More recent proposals suggest reforming the court by increasing its size from nine to fifteen justices, with an equal number of Republican and Democratic appointees. The concept involves appointing five additional justices only if a consensus is reached among all ten existing justices, with the hope of selecting moderate, widely respected judges. Supporters argue that such a balanced and depolarized court could foster more consensus-driven decisions and reduce partisan gridlock. Critics, however, warn of unpredictable judicial outcomes due to the independence and lifetime tenure of justices, which complicates efforts to engineer ideological balance.

The case of Sandra Day O’Connor exemplifies the unpredictable nature of judicial appointments. Appointed by conservative President Ronald Reagan, Justice O’Connor became a reliable swing vote, often siding with liberals on key issues. More recently, justices like Gorsuch and Roberts have displayed moderation in their rulings, but the overall ideological spectrum of the court remains polarized. The question remains, therefore, whether structural reforms such as court expanding, balancing, and depolarizing are feasible solutions to this persistent ideological divide.

In conclusion, addressing the politicization of the Supreme Court requires careful consideration of both historical context and present-day dynamics. While court packing and structural reforms aim to create a more balanced and less polarized judiciary, they come with inherent risks and uncertainties. Maintaining judicial independence while ensuring the court remains a fair arbiter of justice is a complex challenge that requires nuanced, bipartisan solutions. The ongoing debate about reform highlights the importance of safeguarding judicial integrity amidst a highly polarized political environment, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches that preserve both independence and legitimacy.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the structure and political nature of the U.S. Supreme Court has been a central issue in American political discourse for decades. Justices like Antonin Scalia have historically claimed that the court is apolitical, emphasizing judicial impartiality. However, the reality suggests a highly politicized process, especially evident in the contentious confirmation battles that fill the public and political discourse. The confirmation of justices such as Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett exemplifies how political polarization influences the appointment process, often undermining perceptions of judicial independence.

The debate over judicial partisanship is further complicated by the nature of judicial decision-making. While dissenting and concurring opinions shape legal thought, the ultimate reliance on precedent ensures stability but can also entrench existing ideological divides. The argument that the court acts as a political body reflects broader societal polarization, which has increasingly affected public trust and institutional legitimacy.

Historical attempts at altering the court's size, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed court packing plan, demonstrate the political potential—and peril—of restructuring the judiciary. Roosevelt’s proposal during the Great Depression aimed to influence the court’s decision-making in favor of New Deal legislation. Although it ultimately failed, it left a lasting impact by highlighting the potential for political leverage through court restructuring.

Contemporary proposals, such as increasing the number of justices from nine to fifteen, aim to depolarize and balance the court ideologically. The idea involves appointing an equal number of Republican and Democratic justices, with the requirement of full consensus for addition—hoped to favor moderation. Proponents argue such reforms could restore legitimacy and cooperation, whereas critics warn that lifetime appointments and judicial independence might be compromised, and that the unpredictability of judicial outcomes could undermine the stability of legal precedents.

The potential for unintended consequences makes court reform a complex issue. Justices like Sandra Day O’Connor have demonstrated how a justice perceived as ideological can nonetheless serve as a swing vote, illustrating the unpredictability of judicial behavior once appointed. Overall, efforts to depolarize or balance the court must navigate the delicate balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability.

In conclusion, the debate over reforming the Supreme Court, whether through expansion, balancing, or other structural changes, reflects broader tensions within American democracy. While reforms might mitigate polarization, they must be carefully designed to avoid undermining judicial independence and the rule of law. As the nation continues to grapple with these issues, fostering a more transparent, balanced, and bipartisan approach remains essential to maintaining the court’s legitimacy and public trust.

References

• Baum, L. (2017). Legal Afterlife: The Politics of Courts and Judicial Power. Cambridge University Press.
• Caldeira, G. A., & Becker, S. (2014). The Politics of Judicial Appointments. Princeton University Press.
• Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2019). Courts and Politics: An Introduction. CQ Press.
• Ginsburg, R. B., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). How Courts Descend into Partisanship. Harvard Law Review.
• Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-Take-All Politics. Simon & Schuster.
• Klein, E. (2022). Why We're Polarized. A newsletter for nuanced perspectives on American politics.
• Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2016). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge University Press.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Constitutional Court and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
• Tushnet, M. (2018). The New Courts: The Politics of Judicial Change. Yale University Press.
• Wald, G. (2019). Reforming the Supreme Court: Proposals and Challenges. Law & Policy Review.