'They want to pack Supreme Court with left-wing judges': Issa blasts Dems over SCOTUS plans

Key Concepts

• Judicial Independence: The principle that the Supreme Court must remain insulated from political pressure and the "will of the moment."
• Court Packing: The proposal to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to influence its ideological composition.
• Article I & II vs. Article III: The tension between the representative branches (Congress and the Presidency) and the judiciary.
• Circuit Riding: The historical practice where Supreme Court justices presided over lower appellate courts; currently being debated as a potential reform.
• Democratic Accountability: The debate over whether the judiciary should be more responsive to popular will or remain a check against it.

---

1. Main Topics and Key Points

The hearing focuses on the role of the Supreme Court as a check on the other branches of government. The chair argues that the Court’s primary constitutional function is to act as a counter-majoritarian force, protecting the Constitution even when its rulings contradict the "will of the people."

• The Court’s Role: The chair asserts that the Court is at its best when it resists the "fever of the crowd." Historical examples of the Court failing include Dred Scott and the internment of Americans during WWII, which are cited as instances where the Court succumbed to popular pressure.
• Independence vs. Democratization: A central conflict is identified between those who wish to "democratize" the Court (making it more responsive to current political trends) and those who believe it must remain independent to fulfill its role as a constitutional check.
• Congressional Authority: The chair acknowledges Congress’s power to regulate the Court’s budget, pay, and benefits, but warns against efforts to undermine its independence through legislative overreach.

2. Important Examples and Historical Context

• Historical Failures: The chair cites Dred Scott and the WWII-era internment camps as examples of the Court failing to act as a proper check, suggesting these were moments where the Court bowed to the "feeling of the moment."
• Circuit Riding: The chair notes that at the nation's founding, justices performed "circuit riding" duties. The hearing explores whether this practice should be reinstated as a way to reform the Court.
• The 12th Amendment Proposal: The chair references an original, unratified constitutional amendment that would have significantly increased the size of the House of Representatives (potentially to over 6,000 members). This is used as a rhetorical device to question whether "more democracy" (in terms of sheer numbers) is always a superior governing model.

3. Key Arguments and Perspectives

• The Republican Perspective: The chair argues that the Court should remain independent, even when it rules against the Republican Party. The remedy for unfavorable rulings, according to this view, is to revise laws or pursue constitutional amendments, not to pack the Court or limit its jurisdiction.
• The Democratic Perspective (as characterized by the Chair): The chair alleges that Democrats seek to:
  • Require unanimous decisions for the Court to strike down federal laws.
  • Force justices to resume circuit riding.
  • Delay or manipulate the Court’s schedule.
  • Pack the Court with ideologically aligned justices.
• Critique of Professor Bouie: The chair highlights the writings of Professor Bouie, suggesting his work advocates for "democratizing" the Court, which the chair views as a threat to the separation of powers.

4. Notable Quotes

• "The United States Supreme Court has been at its best when it told the reflection of the will of the people of the moment that they could not do what they wanted to do."
• "It is likely been at its worst when it succumbed to the fever of the crowd or the feeling of the moment."
• "The question is today... will the United States side with the idea that we should be more democratic in our third branch or that our third branch should remain more independent?"

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The hearing serves as a platform for a fundamental debate on the nature of American governance. The chair’s position is that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is derived from its independence from the political branches. By framing "court packing" and other proposed reforms as attempts to subject the judiciary to the "will of the moment," the chair argues that such actions would destroy the Court’s ability to serve as a constitutional check. The takeaway is a firm rejection of judicial reform proposals that would increase political control over the Court, favoring instead the traditional, slow-moving, and independent nature of the judiciary as established by the Constitution.