Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden Proposes Adding Six Judges to U.S. Supreme Court
“The new radical bill put forward by Senate Democrats is the worst attack on the Court since FDR.”
And so it begins. Democrats have been talking about trying to pack the U.S. Supreme Court since Trump became president, but now, one of them is actually trying to do it.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) claims his legislation is intended to improve the court’s public image. That would be the same public image that Democrats and the media have been smearing with negativity for years now.
The Washington Post is all too happy to push Wyden’s narrative:
Sweeping bill to overhaul Supreme Court would add six justices
A sweeping bill introduced by a Democratic senator Wednesday would greatly increase the size of the Supreme Court, make it harder for the justices to overturn laws, require justices to undergo audits and remove roadblocks for high court nominations.
The legislation by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is one of the most ambitious proposals to remake a high court that has suffered a sharp decline in its public approval after a string of contentious decisions and ethics scandals in recent years. It has little chance of passing at the moment, since Republicans have generally opposed efforts to overhaul the court.
Wyden, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said the goal of the bill is to restore public confidence in a battered institution. He said he hopes to get parts of the bill passed, even if the whole package is not embraced by lawmakers.
“It’s not an atomic secret that the process for selecting justices is politicized,” Wyden said. “You’ve got this thoroughly politicized process resulting in a Supreme Court that now frequently issues sweeping rulings to overturn laws and upend precedents. We are proposing a way to restore some balance between the three branches of government.”
The bill’s most significant measure would increase the number of justices from nine to 15 over the course of 12 years. The staggered format over two or three administrations is aimed at diminishing the chance that one political party would pack the courts with its nominees.
During the rollout, each president would approve justices in the first and third year of their terms.
This is a classic case of Democrats trying to change the rules because the current situation does not benefit them politically. No one believes the Democrats would be doing this if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election and appointed three progressive ideologues to the court.
The Daly Caller News Foundation has more:
Wyden’s Judicial Modernization and Transparency Act would expand the Supreme Court to 15 justices over 12 years. It would also increase the number of federal circuit courts to 15, adding more than 60 new circuit judges and 100 new district court judges…
JCN President Carrie Severino wrote on X that the bill is “the worst attack on the Court since FDR.”
Franklin. D. Roosevelt’s proposal to pack the court in 1937 failed after facing bipartisan opposition.
Currently, conservatives have a majority on the Supreme Court, with six of the nine justices appointed by Republican presidents.
Along with expanding the court, the bill would require the Supreme Court and circuit courts to establish a two-thirds majority to overturn laws passed by Congress on constitutional grounds. It also require the IRS to “initiate an audit of each justice’s income tax return” and release the returns within 60 days of filing.
None of this has anything to do with fixing the supposedly tarnished image of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is about fixing the court’s politics to favor the progressive left.
🚨With 40 days until Election Day, Democrats just rolled out the most radical and dangerous legislation to date aimed at destroying the Supreme Court as we know it.
The new radical bill put forward by Senate Democrats is the worst attack on the Court since FDR. It will:
❌Pack… pic.twitter.com/8BeA5Td4Rn
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) September 26, 2024
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“increase the size of the Supreme Court, make it harder for the justices to overturn laws, require justices to undergo audits and remove roadblocks for high court nominations.”
Is there any logical, principled pattern to these four changes?
Only one: “It’s what we need to disenfranchise conservatives.”
As usual, the one and only Democrat “principle” rears its head: whatever rules we have to change in order to win today.
If Congress makes this proposal, there should be a concurrent proposal to add additional Representatives by setting the number of representatives at one per every 30,000, as the Constitution suggests.
Result, smaller congressional districts closer to the people.
Anyone can make such a proposal, including you, but it would have absolutely no chance of passing. Eleven thousand representatives?! That’s insane.
The constitution sets one in 30,000 as the maximum size of the house, not as an optimum or recommended size.
make it harder for the justices to overturn laws
Because they don’t want limits to their lawmaking (or bureaucratic rule-making).
remove roadblocks for high court nominations
Unless a Republican is President. Then all the roadblocks will come back.
No, the proposal would force action on a nomination within six months, regardless of who is president. But I don’t think it can be done without a constitutional amendment.
Only one: “It’s what we need to disenfranchise conservatives.”
No the goal is to allow the progressive fascists to rule without the constraints of the constitution. Just like every fascist tyranny.
How about we remove six years from your term and send you home now.
I think we should wait until Trump returns to office in January and THEN add 6 more justices to the court.
And just like that, Democrats hate the idea of six extra Justices!
Bingo
There is no problem with the number of judges on SCOTUS.
There is a looming problem in lower courts. They will need more judges to try all the criminals associated with crooked Dems and the comrades in crime.
Would it not be interesting to find out if they’d still be in favor of it if it wasn’t there communist pedophile seating the judges?
Under their proposal it wouldn’t be. So your claim automatically collapses.
Let trump propose adding 6 more justices and watch the democrats erupt
Wyden’s proposal, if passed this year (which is pretty much impossible), would give Trump the next two nominations (assuming he wins).
He is NOT proposing that Biden be able to appoint six new justices right now. So no, this is not court packing.
I question the timing of the proposal.
You’d think pitching the idea to adding 6 new justices would be held in abeyance given the current polls. I personally have no problem with a 12-3 majority.
Why have so many commenters missed the fact that he is proposing the six new seats be staggered over 12 years? He is ABSOLUTELY NOT proposing that Biden be allowed six nominations immediately. Nor is he proposing that the next president get six nominations. So even if he thinks Harris will win, he’s still not trying to let her pack the court.
I did not miss that.
Are you sure you don’t work for the FBI ? I hear they don’t have a sense of humor.
Your comment wasn’t funny, nor were any of the comments making the same fundamental error. It’s not funny to make an accusation that is simply not true.
Leftists want to install super majority on SCOTUS for one party rule? Of course they do.
No, they don’t. (Well, they probably want to, but they’re not proposing it because they know it won’t fly.)
This is an insanely stupid proposal from the d/prog. They are now on record supporting:
1. Adding 6 Justices to SCOTUS
2. Changing the boundaries and composition of the current Federal Circuits
Sure the d/prog may have a different plan for implementing these changes but they can’t bitch and moan about the basic idea of making changes. Cool lets get ready to go in Jan with a GoP majority in HoR and Senate.
HR-1 and SB-1 should be to dissolve the ‘inferior Courts’. Then HR-2 and SB-2 will set new geographic boundaries for.the Circuits. Now the incoming Trump Admin gets to appoint every Federal District and Circuit Judge plus six new members of SCOTUS.
They’re just beclowning themselves at this point.
Still dangerous, but still clowns.
Six crazy ass POC no doubt
Please, try to be more racist. You are not trying hard enough. You can do better!
Yup, pointing out the obvious is always racist.
People Obviously Criminals?
We must understand who Democrats are these days. Totalitarians to their core. Big Brother is their goal. Convict you of being a thought criminal and jail you for social media posts for disagreeing with them.
Communists, period.
General Flynn: Use RICO to permanently abolish the democrat crime cabal
The man is insane. Term limits for Congress instead.
That would take a constitutional amendment. (As would two out of Wyden’s four proposals.)
Slip in a poison pill amendment that says it only takes effect when the party in control of the Executive Branch changes.
Huh? Did you not read the post before commenting?
That’s not a poison pill, it’s in the original proposal. How could you have missed it? The six new seats would be created over the course of twelve years, so that the next three presidents — including Trump if he wins this year — would get two each, in addition to filling any vacancies that came up.
Wyden also wants to abolish all opposition to the Democrat party, but that goes unmentioned here.
If Trump is elected, and the Republicans take the Senate, Trump should ask for authority to nominate 3 additional Supreme Court Justices, and then immediately propose an amendment to the Constitution to limit the number of Supreme Court Justices to 9. If Congress acts upon and approves his proposed Constitutional amendment, sending it to the States, Trump will withhold nominating any additional judges pending approval of the amendment. Make the Dems an offer they can’t refuse.
We need to allow natural attrition to return the court to the Original number of 3 Supreme Court Justices. The only reason to keep adding is to attempt to subvert the court from it’s purpose with political-minded judges rather than Constitutional-minded judges.
SCOTUS barely accepts enough certiorari as it is. I’d hate to cut its staff.
What the hell? The Supreme Court was never 3.
Three could never handle the workload. Nine is too few; Wyden’s proposal for six new positions staggered over 12 years is actually reasonable. But at any rate it should certainly not be reduced.
Plus, allowing it to reduce by natural attrition is a really bad idea, because who are the oldest justices, and thus the most likely to die first?
Wyden may not like the color of his state the next time he visits.
Wyden has four proposals:
1. Expand the court gradually, by adding a new seat every two years for the next twelve years, thus giving each of the next three presidents two appointments. This seems fair, and not designed to help the Dems (unless he’s really confident that they’ll win at least two of the next three elections).
More importantly, this is certainly something Congress can do. All it takes is a majority in each house (and potentially a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, but I see no reason why it would be filibustered), and the president’s signature.
2. Have the IRS audit all SCOTUS justices and release the returns. This can be achieved with legislation, but it’s mean and offensive. I’d only agree to it if it included members of Congress as well. I’d enthusiastically support it if it also included anyone whose return lists their occupation as “journalist”.
3. Require a 2/3 majority on the court to strike down legislation. I think this one would require a constitutional amendment. I can’t see it being acceptable as an “exception or regulation” to the court’s appellate jurisdiction. I think the court would strike this down — ironically by at least 2/3 and possibly unanimously.
4. Require supreme court nominations to reach the senate calendar within 180 days. Again, this is not achievable by legislation, and would require a constitutional amendment. Under our current constitution the senate is in charge of its own calendar, and no law can force it to put something on the calendar if it doesn’t want to.