Why Democrats Stood Down from Packing the Supreme Court

For years, the question has loomed: why didn’t Democrats seize the opportunity to 'pack' the Supreme Court during their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency? From 2021 to 2023, there were ample opportunities, but the answer to this question is multifaceted, involving political strategy, jurisprudence, and the dynamics of power in the U.S. Congress.

The Context of Supreme Court 'Packing'

The term 'packing' the Supreme Court refers to adding more justices to the court to overcome a judicial majority that they perceive as biased against them. Critics argue that such an action would erode the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, which has long been considered a cornerstone of the American legal system.

Strategies and Challenges

One of the key reasons for the lack of action lies in the political calculations within the Democratic party. Despite some talk and early, albeit serious, consideration, there was never a genuine intention to implement this strategy. President Joe Biden, who represented a more centrist position in the Democratic party, was never on board with such a measure. Moreover, the party was fragmented, with key senators like Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat, expressing strong opposition. Without a unified block of support, the policy was destined to remain mere talk rather than action.

The Filibuster and Senate Dynamics

This fragmentation in the Democratic party was amplified by the procedural hurdle known as the filibuster. The filibuster requires 60 senators to agree to end debate and allow a vote on the bill. In the 117th Congress, which predominantly overlapped with Biden's first two years in office, the Democrats had a majority in the House but a 50-50 split in the Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote. This configuration still fell far short of the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster, even temporarily.

As the 118th Congress unfolded, the Senate tilt slightly in the Democrats' favor, but only enough to make Harris less frequently needed for tie-breaking votes; however, Republicans took control of the House, effectively precluding any meaningful legislation on the Supreme Court. This shift, along with the persistent challenge of overcoming the filibuster, made the idea of packing the Supreme Court unattainable.

The Broader Implications of Court Reforms

While the strategy of packing the Supreme Court remained unimplemented, the underlying issues with the court remain. A more fundamental discussion is needed on the role of the Supreme Court and the broader reform of the judicial system. This could include binding the Supreme Court justices to a binding code of ethics with real consequences for violations, exploring measures to strip the judiciary from certain aspects of its jurisdiction, and finding ways to rebalance the power dynamics in the country.

Conclusion

In the end, the non-action of the Democrats on packing the Supreme Court can be seen as a pragmatic approach to maintaining the delicate balance of power in the U.S. Congress and ensuring the independence of the judiciary. The broader issue, however, remains: how to address the perceived overreach and biases within the Supreme Court without resorting to such controversial measures?

Key Points

Democrats lacked unified support to pack the Supreme Court. The existing filibuster requirement posed a significant procedural hurdle. Broader judicial reform is necessary, including ethical norms and potential court-stripping measures.

The ongoing debate on these issues serves as a critical discussion point for the future of the American legal system and the balance of power in the United States.