As you read in your textbook, court-packing is not a new concept. Roosevelt first proposed it in the 1930s. But in recent years similar suggestions or ideas have surfaced, such as those referenced in the article you read to prepare for this discussion.
Share your opinion on court-packing or any similar adjustments to the Supreme Court.
Are you open to the idea under certain circumstances? If so, what would those be?
If youre not open to it, is there any scenario in which you might be open to it?
Provide rationale and support from this weeks readings to back up your opinions.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
The Complex Debate on Court-Packing: A Critical Analysis
Introduction
The concept of court-packing, primarily associated with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s controversial proposal in the 1930s, has resurfaced in contemporary political discourse. Court-packing refers to the act of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, ostensibly to shift its ideological balance. This essay argues against the practice of court-packing as a viable solution to judicial disagreements, while also considering certain extraordinary circumstances where reforms could be justified.
Understanding Court-Packing
Court-packing has often been perceived as a strategic maneuver by the ruling party to consolidate power and influence judicial outcomes. Roosevelt’s proposal aimed to alleviate the conservative leanings of the Supreme Court that had struck down critical elements of his New Deal legislation. However, such actions can undermine the independence of the judiciary and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
Arguments Against Court-Packing
Erosion of Judicial Independence
One of the primary concerns regarding court-packing is the potential erosion of judicial independence. The judiciary is meant to serve as a check on legislative and executive powers, ensuring that laws and executive actions align with constitutional principles. If court composition becomes subject to political whims, it undermines public trust in an impartial justice system. As noted in this week’s readings, maintaining a nonpartisan judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law and safeguarding civil liberties.
Risk of Escalation
Another significant argument against court-packing is the potential for an escalatory cycle. If one party packs the court, it sets a precedent for the opposing party to respond in kind when it regains power. This tit-for-tat approach could lead to an increasingly politicized judiciary, where appointments are viewed through a partisan lens rather than on merit. The readings emphasize the importance of stability within judicial institutions; constant alterations threaten that stability and may lead to a loss of legitimacy for the Supreme Court.
Potential Circumstances for Reform
While I oppose court-packing as a general practice, there are certain extraordinary circumstances under which I might be open to re-evaluating the structure of the Supreme Court.
Addressing Systemic Issues
If the Supreme Court were to consistently operate outside its intended role—such as making rulings that significantly deviate from established legal precedents or reflect an undeniable bias—then a reevaluation might become necessary. For instance, if a pattern emerges where the Court systematically undermines civil rights or democratic principles, then a structured reform could be warranted.
Term Limits for Justices
Rather than expanding the number of justices, implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices could provide a more balanced approach to addressing concerns about ideological stagnation. This would allow for regular turnover and ensure that justices remain in touch with contemporary societal values without resorting to packing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while court-packing may appear as a tempting solution to achieve ideological balance in the Supreme Court, it poses significant risks to judicial independence and stability. The potential for escalation further complicates matters, making it crucial to preserve the integrity of our judicial system. However, under extraordinary circumstances, a re-evaluation of how we structure our courts may be necessary, including considering term limits rather than outright expansion. The goal should always be to protect the principles of justice and democracy while avoiding actions that could compromise them in the long run.
