Court-packing refers to the practice of a political party in power increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to shift the ideological balance of the court to align with their own political agenda. This is done by appointing new justices who are sympathetic to the party's views, effectively 'packing' the court with ideologically aligned judges.
congrats on reading the definition of Court-Packing. now let's actually learn it.
Court-packing was famously attempted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, when he sought to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 justices in order to ensure his New Deal legislation would be upheld.
The practice of court-packing is widely seen as a threat to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, as it can undermine the courts' ability to serve as a check on the power of the other branches.
Proposals for court-packing have been made by both political parties at various points in history, but the practice is generally considered to be a dangerous violation of the principle of judicial independence.
The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, leaving it up to Congress to determine the size of the court. This has led to fluctuations in the number of justices over time.
Efforts to pack the court are often met with strong opposition, as they are seen as a partisan power grab that undermines the integrity of the judicial system.
Review Questions
Explain how the concept of court-packing relates to the principle of judicial review.
Court-packing is directly at odds with the principle of judicial review, which grants the courts the power to check the actions of the other branches of government and ensure they are constitutional. By attempting to 'pack' the court with ideologically aligned justices, the executive or legislative branch is seeking to undermine the courts' ability to serve as an independent arbiter and instead ensure the court will rule in their favor, effectively neutering judicial review.
Describe how court-packing can impact the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.
Court-packing represents an effort by the executive branch to exert greater control over the judicial branch, which is intended to serve as a check on the power of the other branches. By expanding the court and appointing justices who are sympathetic to the president's agenda, the executive branch is seeking to shift the ideological balance of the court in their favor, potentially compromising the judiciary's independence and its ability to act as a meaningful check on executive power. This can upset the delicate system of checks and balances that is fundamental to American democracy.
Evaluate the potential long-term consequences of court-packing on the integrity and legitimacy of the judicial system.
If court-packing were to become a regular political tactic, it would severely undermine the public's trust in the judiciary as an impartial, non-partisan institution. The courts' ability to serve as a check on the other branches and protect individual rights and liberties would be called into question, as the public may perceive the courts as simply an extension of the political agenda of whichever party happens to be in power. This could lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the judicial branch, potentially eroding the rule of law and the principles of constitutional democracy that the United States was founded upon. The long-term consequences of such a development could be catastrophic for the American system of government.
The power of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to review the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government and determine whether they are constitutional.
The system of distribution of power among the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.