I hope you saw my latest weekly column.
ROGER WICKER: Expanding high court would harm American system of government
<[link removed]>
Last year, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave what would become her
last major interview, reflecting on the Supreme Court and her long life of
service. At one point she was asked about “court packing,” the practice of
adding new seats to the Supreme Court to guarantee favorable rulings. She
flatly rejected the idea. “If anything would make the court look partisan, it
would be that,” she said. Instead, the number of justices should remain the
same: “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time."
Justice Ginsburg is now gone, but her wise words continue to ring true.
Indeed, for decades both parties have denounced court packing because it would
undermine the separation of powers and confidence in our legal system. But in
recent years, some Democrats in Congress have suggested court packing as a way
to counter the growing number of Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme
Court.
For example, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary
Committee, said a future Democrat-led Senate should “immediately” move to pack
the court. Likewise, Senator Ed Markey called on Democrats to “abolish the
filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.” Even Chuck Schumer, the Senate
Minority Leader, said “nothing is off the table” if Democrats win the
presidency and control of the Senate in November.
Adding seats to the court to change its ideological balance should concern
every American. There have been nine seats on the Supreme Court for more than
150 years, providing stability and trust in the rule of law. To protect this
tradition, I am supporting several measures in the Senate that would help
prevent a change to the number of seats on the Supreme Court.
Court packing was last attempted by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.
The Supreme Court had struck down several laws that were part of Roosevelt’s
New Deal. Unable to win on the merits of his proposals, he attempted to change
the court. In 1937, he launched an effort to add up to six new justices.
Americans rallied against the plan, understanding that an independent
judiciary was vital to our system of government. Even Roosevelt’s own Vice
President, John Nance Garner, came out against it. The Democrat-led Senate
defeated the proposal by a 70-20 vote.
Roosevelt would end up appointing eight Supreme Court justices – not because
of court packing, but because he filled vacancies in a constitutional manner
during his 12 years as President. Winning at the ballot box was the appropriate
way to have an impact on the judiciary. The same lesson holds true today.
Like FDR, those who urge court packing today are looking to federal judges to
produce certain outcomes. But this goal misses the point of having a
representative government. It is the job of Congress and the President, not
judges, to make policy for our nation. Judge Amy Coney Barrett said it best in
her recent hearing on Capitol Hill: “The policy decisions and value judgments
of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable
to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should
not try.”
Elections have consequences, and the winners have the authority to nominate
and confirm judges and justices to the federal bench. Regardless of the outcome
in this year’s contests, the President and the Senate should use this authority
only as vacancies occur. Packing the court is a dangerous idea that should once
again be rejected by all parties.
You can click here to share my Op-Ed with your friends on Facebook!
<[link removed]>
Thank you for your support,
Senator Roger Wicker
Donate
<[link removed]>
Please mail contributions to P.O. Box 64, Jackson, MS 39205.
Paid for by Wicker for Senate
You can also keep up with Roger Wicker on Twitter
<[link removed]> or Facebook.
<[link removed]>
Don't want to receive our emails anymore? Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>
