‘WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND…’: Biggs loses it on Dems over court packing push at fiery hearing

Key Concepts

• Court Packing: The practice of changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to influence its ideological composition.
• Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary should be free from political pressure and influence from the executive and legislative branches.
• Checks and Balances: The constitutional framework designed to prevent any one branch of government from gaining too much power.
• Article I Powers: The legislative powers granted to Congress, including the authority to structure the federal judiciary.
• Federalist No. 78: Alexander Hamilton’s essay arguing for an independent judiciary as a barrier against unconstitutional acts.

---

Arguments for the Constitutional Amendment (Pro-Amendment Perspective)

The proponents of the amendment argue that fixing the number of Supreme Court justices at nine is essential to preserve the institution's legitimacy and independence.

• Protection Against Political Overreach: The primary argument is that court packing is a "direct assault" on the Constitution. Proponents contend that if the government can expand the court whenever it dislikes a ruling, the judiciary loses its ability to act as a check on executive and legislative power.
• Historical Precedent: Supporters cite the 1937 rejection of FDR’s court-packing plan as a historical consensus that such actions are an "invasion of judicial power." They note that even prominent figures like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Joe Biden (historically) have spoken out against court expansion.
• The "Power" Argument: Proponents argue that the push for court packing is not driven by ethics or policy, but by a desire for political outcomes. They claim that Democrats only seek to "blow up" the court because they disagree with recent rulings (e.g., Dobbs).
• Safety and Rhetoric: A significant point raised is that "reckless rhetoric" from political opponents has created an environment of violence, citing the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh as a consequence of delegitimizing the court.

---

Arguments Against the Constitutional Amendment (Opposition Perspective)

The opposition argues that the amendment is a strategic attempt to cement a partisan advantage and an unconstitutional surrender of congressional authority.

• Surrender of Congressional Power: Opponents argue that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to structure the judiciary. By passing an amendment to fix the number of justices at nine, Congress would be "permanently relinquishing" a vital constitutional tool meant to check an "imperious" executive branch.
• Historical Flexibility: The opposition highlights that the size of the Supreme Court has changed multiple times throughout history (e.g., 1789, 1801, 1807, 1837, 1863, 1866, 1869) to meet the needs of the nation and the federal circuit system. They argue that fixing the number at nine is an arbitrary choice rather than a constitutional mandate.
• Accusations of Prior "Packing": The opposition contends that the court has already been "packed" or "gerrymandered" by Republican leadership, specifically citing the refusal to hold hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016 versus the rapid confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020.
• Institutional Capitulation: The opposition views the amendment as a move to "pacify" the current administration, arguing that the GOP-controlled Congress is failing to act as a bulwark against executive overreach, instead choosing to "freeze" the current ideological makeup of the court into place.

---

Notable Quotes

• Alexander Hamilton (via Proponent): The court must remain independent from the political branches so it can stand as a "barrier against unconstitutional acts."
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (via Proponent): Court packing is a "bad idea" and "if anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that."
• Former Rep. Mondaire Jones (via Proponent): "Nothing will be enough to protect our democracy short of sending this far-right majority on the court... into the dustbin of history by expanding the Supreme Court."
• Rep. Raskin (Opposition): "The question before us today is not really about whether nine should become a magic number... It's about whether this Congress... should now permanently relinquish another constitutional power."

---

Synthesis and Conclusion

The debate reflects a fundamental disagreement over the role of the Supreme Court and the nature of congressional power. Proponents view the amendment as a necessary "guardrail" to protect the judiciary from being weaponized by political majorities, emphasizing the need for stability and independence. Conversely, opponents view the amendment as a strategic maneuver to lock in a conservative majority while simultaneously stripping Congress of its historical, constitutional authority to regulate the judiciary. Both sides accuse the other of prioritizing partisan power over the long-term integrity of the American constitutional system.