Would Stacking the Supreme Court with More Justices Be Constitutional?

Adding an additional four Justices would not only be constitutional but would also improve the efficiency of the courts. At present, there are 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals assigned to only 9 judges. This is a significant imbalance that has been a point of contention in recent years.

Historical Context and Partisan Politics

The Constitution does not dictate the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. However, historical precedents and current political realities have led to this number being set at 9. In fact, the most recent Republican nominations to the Supreme Court have significantly altered the Court's composition.

For example, Mitch McConnell and the GOP once reduced the size of the court from 9 to 8 for a year in order to deny President Obama his Constitutional right to appoint a member to the court. After the election, they expanded it back to 9 in an effort to stack the court. This practice has been criticized for being partisan and destabilizing the long-term balance of the judiciary.

Economic and Efficiency Considerations

The current number of 9 Justices has enjoyed 150 years of relative stability. However, with the increasing caseload and complexity of litigation, there is a strong argument to be made for increasing the number of Justices to enhance the efficiency of the courts. Having more judges would mean a quicker resolution of cases and a more efficient judicial process.

Constitutional Viability and Party Manipulation

It is important to note that the Constitution does not prescribe the number of justices. It is up to Congress to decide this number. The current number of 9 has been in place since 1869, and before that, the number fluctuated between 5 and 10. These changes were often made for political reasons, as the party in power would set the number to suit their partisan objectives.

Even overtly partisan politicians realize that any changes they make to the court would be only a short-term advantage. The other party will likely be back in power soon, leading to a rapid swing in constitutional interpretation. For this reason, sensible politicians will typically avoid making sudden and significant changes to the court's composition.

Consequences and Recommendations

Stacking the Supreme Court, even if constitutional, would lead to instability and potential judicial power shifts. If Democrats were to stack the court, then Republicans could do the same when they come into power, resulting in a rapid back-and-forth in constitutional interpretation. This could lead to unpredictable and contradictory rulings on various issues.

However, it is also important to recognize that the rule of law and the stability of the judiciary are paramount. Deviating from long-standing traditions and procedures could have far-reaching and negative consequences. A 150-year-old tradition should not be lightly broken.

In conclusion, the size of the Supreme Court is not set by the Constitution. Setting it by law makes the rule as dependable as a lifeguard in a wheelchair. While court packing may be tempting in the short term, it is not advisable due to its potential to destabilize and polarize an already partisan judiciary. The focus should remain on maintaining the balance and integrity of the judicial system, rather than engaging in partisan maneuvers that could lead to national turmoil.