The Supreme Courts Power of Judicial Review Is a Result of
When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on September xviii, 2020, many Americans didn't take the proper time to grieve — instead, they panicked nigh what her passing meant for the future of the land. Property the balance of an entire democracy is as well swell a brunt for anyone'southward shoulders, and Justice Ginsburg had been carrying that weight for a long, long fourth dimension. Instead of holding space for her passing, Republican politicians wasted no fourth dimension in queuing up a nominee for the empty Supreme Court seat, eventually landing on Amy Coney Barrett — a longtime Notre Dame Law School professor who served fewer than three years on the Seventh Circuit before her nomination to the highest court in the American judicial system.
In 2016, and so-Senate Bulk Leader Mitch McConnell infamously vowed to block President Obama's outgoing Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland on the grounds that the American people should accept a "phonation" and that to rush a nomination (and confirmation) would be to overly politicize the effect. In 2020, however, McConnell didn't hold to those principles he outlined 4 years earlier, leading to Barrett's confirmation hearings and equally rushed swearing in ceremony, which took place most a week before Election Day on October 26, 2020.
This move led many to criticize McConnell, including New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC), who simply tweeted, "Expand the court." Additionally, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey (@EdMarkey), who is Ocasio-Cortez's Light-green New Deal co-author, tweeted, "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Courtroom vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates information technology, when Democrats command the Senate in the next Congress, nosotros must abolish the delay and expand the Supreme Court."
The Number of Supreme Court Seats Has Been Adapted Before — Here'southward How It's Washed
This call for a SCOTUS expansion has led many to wonder: Is such a motility even possible? The short answer: yes. Congress could easily change the number of seats on the Supreme Courtroom bench. According to the Supreme Court's website, "The Constitution places the ability to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress" — just another example of those supposed checks and balances that guide a constitutional government. In fact, the number of Justices has shifted several times throughout the Court's history. In 1789, the first Judiciary Human action set up the number of Justices at six; during the Civil State of war, the number of seats went up to nine and then briefly 10; and, once President Andrew Johnson took part, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act in 1866, cutting the number of Justices to vii and then that Johnson couldn't stack the courtroom in favor of Southern states.
Since 1869, however, the Supreme Courtroom has been equanimous of nine Justices. In semi-recent history, at that place'south been one notable endeavor to aggrandize the Court — ane that will live in infamy, so to speak. Back in 1937, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt aimed to expand the Court, which kept shooting down some of his New Bargain legislation. More than specifically, FDR felt that many of the older Justices were out of touch with the times, so much and then that they were colloquially dubbed the "nine old men."
FDR's proposal? Add ane Justice to the Supreme Courtroom for every 70-year-sometime Justice residing on the bench. That would've resulted in fifteen Supreme Court Justices, merely fifty-fifty the Democrat-controlled Congress — and FDR'southward own Vice President — were against the idea. Since FDR's infamous defeat, no attempt to aggrandize or reduce the Supreme Court has gathered much steam — until now.
How Probable Is It That Democrats Will Expand the Supreme Court in 2021?
Interestingly enough, Politico points out that President Biden has been outspoken about not expanding the court. In 2019, President Biden even went as far equally proverb "nosotros'll live to rue that day [we expand the Court]," arguing that an expansion would lead to constant changes — more expansions, more reductions. In short, it would milkshake the American people's faith in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court (and potentially the Democratic party). Of course, that's just one scenario — and one that hasn't happened in the past. But, in the past, Vice President Kamala Harris has shown some support for the idea, saying she'd be "open up" to information technology. Nevertheless, both Vice President Harris and President Biden have also dodged questions surrounding court-packing and Supreme Court expansion.
On the other hand, more outspoken proponents have tried to get together momentum for the idea. Representative Ocasio-Cortez expanded upon her initial "Expand the Court" tweet, calling out Republicans' hypocrisy toward appointing new Justices during presidential election years. "Republicans do this because they don't believe Dems have the stones to play hardball similar they do. And for a long time they've been correct," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. "But exercise not permit them keen the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal just a response isn't. There is a legal procedure for expansion."
In the face of a 6–iii Conservative bulk, folks like Representative Ocasio-Cortez argue that the Supreme Courtroom is out of residue — and, more than that, it isn't quite reflective of the American people's concerns and values. Then much lies in the easily of the court: the fate of the Affordable Care Act, Roe 5. Wade and marriage equality, simply to proper name a few. Now, we'll just accept to see if this imbalance — and Barrett's speedy engagement — are enough to convince President Biden and members of Congress to seriously consider a Supreme Court expansion.
Source: https://www.ask.com/culture/ask-answers-expand-supreme-court?utm_content=params%3Ao%3D740004%26ad%3DdirN%26qo%3DserpIndex
0 Response to "The Supreme Courts Power of Judicial Review Is a Result of"
Post a Comment