Recently the Legislative branch considered whether to try to expand the Supreme Court by adding 4 new seats to the Court to make 13 justices instead of 9 justices. The Constitution does not outline specifically how many justices must be appointed. Some have argued that this could “pack the court” with liberal justices. Others have argued that it might create a balance with the conservative-tipped bench presently in place.
you are PRO Court expansion.
Consider the following questions:
1) What are the pros and cons to expanding the Supreme Court, especially relating to its possible effects on judicial review? Give illustrative examples of what could happen. Argue for your assigned outcome.
2) Do you think the framers intended the Supreme Court to be expanded and or packed on one side or the other?
3) What can we learn from history about this? Has it ever happened before? If so, what was the net effect — and why?
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Expanding the Supreme Court: Strengthening Judicial Review
Introduction
In recent discussions, the possibility of expanding the Supreme Court by adding four new seats has sparked a heated debate. While some argue that this expansion could “pack the court” with liberal justices, others believe it could create a necessary balance with the conservative-leaning bench currently in place. In this essay, we will explore the pros and cons of expanding the Supreme Court, particularly in relation to its potential effects on judicial review. By examining historical precedents and considering the intentions of the framers, we will argue in favor of expanding the Court as a means to strengthen its role in safeguarding democracy.
Pros and Cons of Expanding the Supreme Court
Expanding the Supreme Court can have both positive and negative consequences. Let us delve into these aspects, with a focus on how it may impact judicial review.
Pros:
Diverse Perspectives: Increasing the number of justices would allow for a more diverse range of perspectives on the Court. This diversity can contribute to a more balanced decision-making process and enhance the legitimacy of the Court’s rulings. It would ensure that a broader range of legal and societal viewpoints are considered when interpreting the Constitution.
Enhanced Representation: Expanding the Court could help address concerns about underrepresentation. With an increased number of justices, different regions, legal backgrounds, and demographic groups could potentially be better represented. This would foster greater inclusivity and ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse issues facing society.
Reduced Caseload: The Supreme Court receives thousands of cases each year, resulting in a significant backlog. By expanding the Court, the workload could be distributed more evenly among justices, allowing for more thorough consideration of each case. This would lead to more comprehensive and well-reasoned decisions, thereby strengthening the overall quality of judicial review.
Cons:
Politicization: Critics argue that expanding the Court could lead to further politicization of judicial appointments. They contend that increasing the number of justices might incentivize future presidents and Congress to manipulate the Court’s composition for partisan gains. This could undermine the Court’s independence and impartiality, potentially eroding public trust in its decisions.
Instability: Some worry that expanding the Court could create instability within the judiciary. With each expansion, future administrations may be tempted to further increase or decrease the number of justices, creating a never-ending cycle of change. This could disrupt the Court’s ability to establish stable legal precedents and lead to uncertainty in interpreting constitutional principles.
Polarization: Increasing the number of justices could exacerbate ideological divisions within the Court. Critics argue that packing the Court with additional justices from one political ideology may lead to a more polarized decision-making process. This could hinder consensus-building and compromise, potentially undermining the Court’s ability to effectively uphold constitutional values.
Intentions of the Framers
To understand whether the framers intended for the Supreme Court to be expanded or packed on one side or another, we must consider the historical context and their intentions when drafting the Constitution. The framers deliberately left the number of justices unspecified, providing flexibility for future generations to adapt to changing circumstances.
While they did not specifically outline their intentions regarding expansion or packing, it is evident from their broader goals that they sought to establish an independent judiciary capable of safeguarding constitutional principles. The framers sought to create a system of checks and balances that would prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful. Expanding the Court aligns with this principle by ensuring that multiple perspectives are represented, thus preventing undue influence by any particular ideological faction.
Lessons from History
Historical precedent provides valuable insights into the effects of expanding the Supreme Court. In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the Court from nine to fifteen justices, which was met with significant resistance. Although his proposal ultimately failed to pass, it had a profound impact on judicial review.
The threat of expansion prompted Justice Owen Roberts to shift his position on key New Deal legislation, known as “the switch in time that saved nine.” This shift effectively preserved the Court’s legitimacy and prevented further attempts at expansion. Consequently, this historical episode demonstrates how the mere prospect of expanding the Court can influence justices’ decisions and lead to greater consensus-building.
Conclusion
Expanding the Supreme Court by adding four new seats has both pros and cons. However, when considering its potential effects on judicial review, it becomes clear that expansion can strengthen this critical aspect of our democracy. By promoting diverse perspectives, enhancing representation, and reducing caseloads, an expanded Court can better fulfill its role in safeguarding constitutional principles.
While critics raise concerns about politicization, instability, and polarization, historical precedent suggests that expansion can foster consensus-building and preserve the Court’s independence. Furthermore, by examining the intentions of the framers who sought to establish an independent judiciary, we can infer that they would likely support an expanded Court as a means of safeguarding democratic values.
In conclusion, expanding the Supreme Court presents an opportunity to reinforce its central role in upholding justice and ensuring a more inclusive interpretation of our Constitution. By embracing this expansion, we can strengthen judicial review and promote a more robust and balanced democracy for future generations.
