‘Dumbest things I've ever heard': Jordan tears into Dems over court packing | Louisiana v. Callais

Key Concepts

• Court Packing: The proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court justices, specifically adding four seats to shift the current 6-3 conservative majority.
• Judicial Independence: The principle that the Supreme Court should operate as a separate and equal branch of government, free from political intimidation.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1507: A federal statute that prohibits picketing or parading in or near a building or residence occupied by a judge with the intent to influence them.
• Limiting Principle: The theoretical or practical barrier that would prevent an endless cycle of court expansion if one party were to increase the number of seats.
• Dobbs Leak (2022): The unauthorized disclosure of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which the committee characterized as an attempt to intimidate the Court.

---

1. Main Topics and Arguments

The hearing focused on the constitutionality and political implications of "packing the court."

• The Case Against Expansion: Chairman Jordan and other speakers argued that court packing is a "raw political power" grab. They contend that if the current 6-3 majority is disliked, the appropriate remedy is to win elections and appoint justices through the constitutional process, rather than altering the structure of the judiciary.
• The "Limiting Principle" Problem: A central argument presented was that there is no logical stopping point for court expansion. If one party adds four seats, the opposing party could add more upon taking power, leading to a "never-ending cyclical process" that could result in hundreds of justices.
• Historical Context: The committee referenced the failed 1937 court-packing plan by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Despite Roosevelt’s landslide victory and clear mandate, a bipartisan majority in Congress—including members of his own party—rejected the plan to preserve the structural integrity of the democracy.

2. Real-World Applications and Incidents

• The 2022 Dobbs Leak: Witnesses and committee members discussed the leak of the Dobbs opinion as a "cowardly act" and an attempt to influence the Court’s decision-making process.
• Protests at Justices' Homes: The committee highlighted that protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices occurred following the leak, noting that the Department of Justice under the Biden administration allegedly failed to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 1507.
• Political Rhetoric: Chairman Jordan cited a March 4, 2020, statement by Senator Chuck Schumer on the steps of the Supreme Court, where he warned Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they would "pay the price" for their decisions, characterizing this as the beginning of a "six-year assault" on the Court.

3. Methodologies for Change

The committee emphasized that the constitutional method for changing the Court’s direction is:

1. Public Advocacy: Building a record of opposition and taking the case to the public.
2. Electoral Success: Winning the White House and maintaining a majority in the Senate to confirm justices who align with a specific judicial philosophy.
3. Reconsideration: Asking the Court to reconsider its own precedents through standard legal channels.

4. Notable Quotes

• Chairman Jordan: "Why do they want four justices? ... Because it's a 6-3 majority for conservatives... They want four because they want a 7-6 majority. Plain and simple, raw political power."
• Mr. Caposi (on court expansion): "I don't think there is any limit... if one president packed the court then the next president could pack the court and it would just be a never-ending cyclical process."
• Mr. Sharer (on the Dobbs leak): "It was an attempt to try to get one or two of the justices who ended up in the majority on Dobbs to back away."

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The hearing served as a firm rejection of court-packing proposals by the committee leadership. The consensus among the majority members and several witnesses was that the Supreme Court’s size should remain at nine, as it has for decades. The primary takeaway is that the judiciary is intended to be an independent branch, and attempts to alter its size in response to unfavorable rulings are viewed as dangerous to the separation of powers. The committee concluded that the only legitimate way to influence the Court is through the established electoral and constitutional appointment process, rather than through legislative manipulation of the Court's structure.