A Pack-The-Court Super-PAC?
There’s no constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court have nine justices. In fact, through much of the nineteenth century, this number fluctuated between six and nine several times. FDR’s Judicial Reorganization Bill in 1937 sought to increase that number dramatically in order to fill the court with more liberal justices, a notorious “pack-the-court” effort that went down in flames — though some historians suspect that it had the indirect effect of making the court less aggressive in opposing New Deal policies.
Today, though a lot of people are disappointed and even angry at the direction the present Supreme Court is taking on many issues, there’s no well organized and popular movement to change its numerical composition. But really, folks, in light of the court’s own Citizens United decision, there’s no need for a well organized and popular movement to successfully (or at least significantly) promote any political issue.
To get a lot of people riled up about an issue, demanding change, all that’s needed today is one really rich guy on a bat who sets up a Super-PAC and hires TV media hacks to promote that bat. As long as it involves a political issue, pretty much any view can be promoted this way.
Is packing the Supreme Court a political issue? Since an increasing number of judges are elected in this country rather than appointed on merit, and since so many of the issues judges decide have obvious political implications, a Super-PAC seeking to change the numerical composition of the Supreme Court (i.e. pack it) would obviously be a manifestation of the money-is-free-speech-in-politics doctrine the court itself sought to encourage with its Citizens United decision.
One wonders, however: If a Super-PAC with the purpose of packing the court actually appeared, would members of the present court like to see their own decision applied in this way? Like to confront a well funded demand that their own power base be dramatically restructured? Doing onto others is one thing. But having it done unto yourself? Well…
More from this writer at: This God-Awful Political Season (In Verse)
3 Responses to “A Pack-The-Court Super-PAC?”
Normally we wait for hypocrisy to actually happen before we accuse others of hypocrisy. I think your question was mostly rhetorical, but I actually don’t see that the court would take any action against such a Super-PAC, provided its operating within the law.
They do it because they can. Same with corporate greed, because they can. Which is why regulation, (Law) needs to be more restrictive. Unfortunately the law is subject to Supreme Court judgment, which is why we should Pac(k) the Supreme Court with our side of the political spectrum if we can, because we can. At least until the other side gets the darn message.
The USSC let a truly nasty toxin out of the bag with that decision. It won’t be easy to put it back again – especially given the thick-headed and cowardly nature of today’s lawmakers.