It must be June, as hysterical leftists whine they want to pack the Supreme Court
It’s June, which means the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to issue some of its most significant opinions of the term and, predictably, radicals on the political left are renewing their hysterical calls for sweeping changes to the court whenever decisions fail to align with their preferred policy outcomes.
In recent years, virtually every Supreme Court ruling that has diverged from progressive policy preferences has been met with demands for so-called "court reform." This year, however, many prominent voices have abandoned any pretense of moderation, with demands for packing the court becoming the norm.
U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, one of the most influential members of the Democratic Party, recently stated, "The Supreme Court is a disgrace. In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court and let me be very clear: Everything is on the table — everything — to deal with this corrupt MAGA majority."
Michigan Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib posted on social media: "Term limits for the Supreme Court. Enforce a binding Code of Ethics. Impeach these corrupt justices. Expand the Court."
JONATHAN TURLEY: CALLING THE COURT ILLEGITIMATE IS THE LEFT’S LATEST ASSAULT ON THE CONSTITUTION
On April 29, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Ayanna Pressley criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, stating that "Congress must immediately … take action to restore the integrity and legitimacy of this far-right majority Supreme Court—including expanding the Court, imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices, and passing a binding Supreme Court code of ethics. Every option should be on the table."
While such rhetoric is not new, its intensity appears to be increasing. The movement to expand the Supreme Court has been fueled, in part, by increasingly aggressive attacks on the institution by elected officials who view the Court as an obstacle to their policy goals. But these members of Congress should know better. If Congress disagrees with a ruling of the Supreme Court, the proper response is to utilize the political process and pass a new law addressing that issue.
Make no mistake: court packing is a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary. Altering the size of the Supreme Court for political purposes would undermine its legitimacy and destroy the perception of impartiality that is essential to maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. If successful, efforts to pack the Court would transform the judiciary from a guardian of constitutional liberties into a political instrument of the executive and legislative branches.
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE PINPOINTS WHAT AMERICANS MISUNDERSTAND ABOUT HE AND HIS COLLEAGUES
Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley warned that a "radical court packing scheme would erase the legitimacy of the Supreme Court" and undermine its role as "a co-equal branch of government." His concern extends beyond ordinary partisan disagreement.
The Constitution deliberately establishes three separate and independent branches of government to ensure that no single branch dominates the others. When Congress manipulates the size of the court to influence judicial outcomes, instead of doing its legislative job, it destroys that separation and reduces the judiciary to a mere puppet of the political party in power.
Rather than treating the court as an independent constitutional institution, the left increasingly portrays it as a political obstacle that must be reshaped whenever it produces unfavorable decisions. Such a view fundamentally misunderstands the role of the judiciary. Courts exist to interpret and apply the law — not to deliver ideologically preferred outcomes on demand. An independent judiciary remains one of the most important safeguards of civil liberty.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Once one political party expands the court to achieve its objectives, the opposing party will have every incentive to do the same when it gains power. The result would be an escalating cycle in which judicial decisions become increasingly tied to partisan calculations rather than constitutional principles and legal reasoning.
The consequences for civil rights would be profound. Rights endure not because they are popular, but because courts enforce them even when they are politically unpopular. If the judiciary becomes an instrument of shifting political majorities, constitutional protections become contingent and uncertain. Today’s majority could expand the court to protect one set of rights; tomorrow’s majority could expand it again to dismantle them. In such a system, no right remains secure.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether one agrees with any particular Supreme Court decision. Reasonable people can and do disagree with the court. The real question is whether the structure of the judiciary should be altered to achieve political outcomes. Packing the Supreme Court would represent an act of political retaliation that threatens the constitutional order and the civil liberties of all Americans.
Court packing undermines the separation of powers by subordinating the judiciary to political interests. It jeopardizes civil rights by eroding the stability and independence of the courts charged with protecting them. In a constitutional system built upon checks, balances and institutional restraint, that is a price far too high to pay.