'Favorite tool of TYRANTS!': Rep. Fitzgerald RIPS Democrats over court packing push at House hearing

Key Concepts

• Court Packing: The practice of increasing the number of justices on a supreme court to influence its ideological composition.
• Rule of Law: The principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced.
• Judiciary Act of 1869: The legislation that established the current number of nine Supreme Court justices.
• New Deal: A series of programs and projects instituted during the Great Depression by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to restore prosperity.
• Judicial Independence: The concept that the judiciary should be free from influence by the other branches of government or private interests.

---

1. Historical Context and the Size of the Court

The transcript details that the size of the Supreme Court was historically fluid, changing to accommodate the expansion of the nation and the number of judicial circuits. Justices originally served "two hats," acting as both Supreme Court justices and circuit court judges until 1891. The number of justices fluctuated between five and ten, eventually settling at nine in 1869. The number nine is defended as optimal because it prevents a tie-split, ensuring a decisive ruling.

2. The 1937 Roosevelt Court-Packing Plan

The panel discussed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 attempt to expand the court to 15 justices.

• Motivation: Historians agree the move was politically motivated to protect New Deal legislation (such as the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act) from being struck down by the court.
• The "Geriatric" Argument: Roosevelt initially claimed the court was overworked and that justices over 70 were inefficient. This was widely viewed as disingenuous, as the older justices were considered vigorous and healthy.
• Outcome: The plan was widely criticized, even by members of his own party, such as House Judiciary Committee Chair Hatton Sumners.

3. Arguments Against Modern Court Packing

The witnesses presented five primary arguments against current proposals to expand the Supreme Court:

1. Incorrect Factual Premise: Proponents argue the "Roberts Court" is relentlessly partisan. However, the panel noted that the court frequently rules against conservative interests (e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, Bostock v. Clayton County, and NFIB v. Sebelius).
2. Unpredictability of Appointments: Adding justices does not guarantee a shift in ideological outcomes. Historically, justices often vote against the interests of the presidents who appointed them (e.g., Nixon appointees voting in favor of Roe v. Wade).
3. The "Tit-for-Tat" Cycle: Expanding the court would trigger a cycle of retaliation. If one party expands the court to 13, the opposing party would likely do the same upon gaining power, leading to an unsustainable and bloated institution.
4. Distraction from Legislative Solutions: Court packing diverts energy from building political coalitions. The panel argued that if Congress disagrees with a court’s statutory interpretation (e.g., the Voting Rights Act), the proper remedy is to pass new legislation rather than packing the court.
5. Erosion of Public Trust: Viewing the court as a partisan actor rather than a neutral arbitrator threatens the rule of law. If the public loses faith in the court’s legitimacy, losing parties may be tempted to disregard court orders, which would signify the "end of the rule of law."

4. Global Context and Legitimacy

The speakers highlighted that court packing is a tactic frequently employed by authoritarian regimes to consolidate power. Notable examples cited include:

• Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
• Viktor Orbán (Hungary)
• Hugo Chávez (Venezuela)

5. Notable Quotes

• On the Rule of Law: "If too many come to view the Supreme Court as a partisan actor rather than a neutral arbitrator of law, the losing parties will be tempted to disregard court orders... It would mean the end of the rule of law, plain and simple." — Mr. Capozzi
• On Roosevelt’s 1937 Plan: Senator Joe Biden is quoted as having referred to the 1937 attempt as "a terrible mistake and a boneheaded idea." — Mr. Shearer

Synthesis and Conclusion

The consensus among the witnesses is that court packing is a dangerous political maneuver that undermines the judiciary's role as a neutral "ballast" or counterweight to the other branches of government. The speakers emphasized that while criticism of the court’s reasoning is a healthy part of democratic discourse, attacking the institution's legitimacy through expansion threatens the stability of the entire federal government. The preferred alternative is to address policy disagreements through the legislative process rather than altering the structure of the judicial branch.