Why history shows 'court packing' isn't extreme

Article Image

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has avoided taking a stance on the issue of adding seats to the Supreme Court since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spurred a contentious nomination process. Biden's deputy campaign manager discusses the issue with CNN's Jake Tapper.

Posted: Oct 12, 2020 6:31 PM
Updated: Oct 12, 2020 6:31 PM

At the presidential and vice presidential debates, Donald Trump and Mike Pence asked their opponents the same question: Will you pack the courts?

The symmetry of their approach shows they believe a focus on "court packing" could turn their ailing campaign around. And they got a quick assist from media outlets who began hammering the Biden campaign about the issue.

But "court packing" — as both a phrase and a historical precedent — obscures more than it reveals about the current debate over the size of the Supreme Court. That's because the parallel to President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to change the court's size don't fit the current situation, and the broader history of court expansion bolsters the case for expanding the court now.

Expansion of the court rests in the hands of Congress, a right it has exercised several times in the nation's history. Rather than being "illicit" or "tyranny," as conservative critics have charged, it is an ordinary power of Congress granted by the Constitution. Over the course of the 19th century, the court fluctuated from five to 10 members, ultimately settling at nine. In many cases, the changes reflected fluctuations in the number of federal court districts. When districts were added or removed, the number of seats on the court changed with them. (For the record, there are currently 13 federal districts.)

Mixed in with these relatively neutral changes were more politically motivated ones. In fact, the first change to the Supreme Court came as part of the "midnight judges" scandal of 1801, when Federalists doubled the number of district judges and shrank the size of the Supreme Court from six to five after they lost the election of 1800, hoping to install as many as their allies as possible before Thomas Jefferson became president.

Because this was an act of Congress, Jefferson's legislative allies were able to simply repeal the law in 1802, bumping the Supreme Court back up to six seats.

And then, of course, there was the famous attempt to pack the court in 1937. Franklin Roosevelt, irritated that a conservative court kept striking down legislation aimed at reviving the economy during the Great Depression, proposed adding a slew of new justices under the guise of court reform. The effort technically failed — Congress never passed the legislation — though the court became more amenable to New Deal legislation in the sessions that followed.

In the case of both Adams and Roosevelt, the system broadly worked to check political power grabs. Congress rectified the court's size in 1802 and rejected its expansion in 1937.

Today, the situation is quite different. First, the call for a change to the court's size is not a response to specific rulings that Democrats disagree with. There were few widespread calls for an expanded court following the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, which vastly expanded gun-ownership rights, Shelby Co. v. Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, or even Citizens United v. FEC, a ruling so universally reviled by voters that a 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found even 76% of Republicans disagreed with it (85% of Democrats and 81% of independents did, too — though many Republican officeholders welcomed the influx of money into campaigns).

What's really driving the renewed interest in court expansion is something else: the politicized change in the size of the court has already happened. It occurred in 2016, when a Republican-controlled Senate allowed the court to shrink to eight justices. Not only did the Senate fail to fulfill its constitutional duty to vote on the president's nominee, some Senate Republicans were prepared to keep the court at eight if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. Sen. Ted Cruz and the late Sen. John McCain both floated that possibility in October 2016, with Cruz musing, "There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices."

The refusal to even hold a hearing for a presidential nominee was more than a norm violation — it was an abdication of constitutional responsibility. And because it was one that worked out well for Republicans, there has been no reckoning.

Until now. The Biden campaign has not yet weighed in on expanding the court, but there is a groundswell of support for it from Democrats who believe it is the only way to remedy what happened in 2016. That makes a more accurate precedent for the court-expansion debate not the 1937 attempt, but 1802, when Congress returned the court to six seats after Adams attempted to take a seat from Jefferson and pack the lower courts with his allies.

These historical precedents help put the current debate in a more accurate context than blanket condemnations of "court packing." But they should not be thought of as straightjackets constraining the bounds of debate. Historical precedent can serve as a guide to how people have considered these issues in the past, but they are not an excuse to ignore the unique conditions of the current crisis: The Republicans' smash-and-grab approach to judicial nominations threatens the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary and weakens the rule of law.

Should Democrats win the election, they will have to fix this, too. That likely means court expansion, but also a raft of judicial reforms ranging from Supreme Court term limits to narrowing its jurisdiction. It likely means coming to terms with a reality most Americans have never really confronted: The court has never been apolitical, and even with reforms, there will be fights over its composition and power — fights Democrats must be willing to take up.

Huntsville/Redstone
Cloudy
38° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 35°
Feels Like: 38°
Muscle Shoals
Cloudy
40° wxIcon
Hi: 53° Lo: 35°
Feels Like: 36°
Huntsville/Madison
Cloudy
38° wxIcon
Hi: 49° Lo: 35°
Feels Like: 32°
Decatur
Cloudy
39° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 37°
Feels Like: 36°
Fort Payne
Cloudy
35° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 35°
Feels Like: 35°
WAAY Radar
WAAY WAAY-TV Cam
WAAY Temperatures

Alabama Coronavirus Cases

Cases: 417528

Reported Deaths: 6030
CountyCasesDeaths
Jefferson61313888
Mobile29768542
Madison26637185
Tuscaloosa20580268
Montgomery18696304
Shelby18310113
Baldwin16002179
Lee12261101
Morgan12093112
Etowah11604157
Calhoun10982200
Marshall10108107
Houston8474129
Cullman7960104
Limestone790174
Elmore7723101
DeKalb764697
St. Clair7460120
Lauderdale745183
Talladega6102108
Walker5852174
Jackson574441
Blount526483
Colbert525670
Autauga510355
Coffee434256
Dale391081
Franklin363445
Chilton333565
Covington326167
Russell323810
Escambia312442
Dallas300296
Clarke278233
Chambers277869
Tallapoosa2599107
Pike245829
Marion240549
Lawrence240447
Winston223835
Bibb213047
Geneva197431
Marengo197329
Pickens195231
Hale173742
Barbour171236
Butler167958
Fayette166026
Cherokee159630
Henry151119
Monroe144417
Randolph138535
Washington136526
Clay125246
Crenshaw118044
Lamar116619
Cleburne116023
Macon113335
Lowndes108735
Wilcox101221
Bullock98128
Perry95419
Conecuh92920
Sumter88726
Greene75323
Coosa60414
Choctaw51224
Out of AL00
Unassigned00

Tennessee Coronavirus Cases

Cases: 676039

Reported Deaths: 8311
CountyCasesDeaths
Shelby752601102
Davidson69679654
Knox38097389
Hamilton34075324
Rutherford32696282
Unassigned22259128
Williamson21054138
Sumner17980229
Out of TN1581878
Wilson14242154
Montgomery14085148
Sullivan12405209
Washington11757191
Blount11708122
Maury10812122
Bradley1058390
Sevier10320108
Putnam9790136
Madison9011178
Robertson751685
Hamblen6855106
Anderson6678101
Greene6500108
Tipton611664
Gibson5571111
Coffee552981
Dickson529277
Cumberland528672
Bedford523885
Roane510777
Carter5053112
Lawrence502869
McMinn500473
Warren492753
Loudon487750
Dyer469281
Jefferson464975
Monroe447362
Hawkins438668
Franklin403556
Obion396474
Fayette388951
Rhea376155
Lincoln372944
Cocke338956
Weakley337848
Marshall335836
Cheatham330528
Henderson330155
Campbell318139
Giles317371
Hardeman306452
White305543
Carroll304459
Hardin295446
Lauderdale291031
Macon284150
Wayne259519
Henry257357
Overton249142
DeKalb239340
Haywood237245
McNairy233642
Smith228427
Trousdale228314
Marion222731
Scott222431
Hickman219734
Fentress211031
Grainger204935
Claiborne202021
Johnson200531
Morgan186615
Crockett179638
Bledsoe172610
Chester171037
Unicoi164643
Cannon155419
Lake154019
Decatur145926
Polk139817
Grundy138220
Union136821
Sequatchie133318
Humphreys131117
Benton130935
Lewis126820
Meigs111916
Stewart103820
Jackson102821
Perry93725
Houston93122
Clay92026
Moore7888
Pickett66819
Van Buren6487
Hancock3986

Community Events