22) Analysis of the big government policy of "Pack the Supreme Court with Leftist Judges""

 SPOTM Analysis of “Pack the Supreme Court with Liberal/Leftist Judges”

Verdict: Strongly Misaligned

Court-packing — expanding the number of Supreme Court justices beyond the traditional nine to appoint ideologically aligned judges — is a blatant partisan power grab. SPOTM views it as deeply misaligned with constitutional norms, institutional stability, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights.

Why This Policy Is Misaligned

1. Undermines Constitutional Norms and Stability The size of the Supreme Court has been nine justices since 1869. This long-standing norm provides institutional continuity and legitimacy. Changing the number purely for partisan advantage destroys that stability and sets a dangerous precedent that future majorities will exploit.
2. Partisan Power Grab, Not Principled Reform Proposals to “pack the Court” are almost always driven by short-term political frustration rather than a coherent constitutional theory. SPOTM opposes structural changes whose primary purpose is to rig institutional outcomes in favor of one ideological faction (in this case, liberal/leftist judges).
3. Threatens Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law The Supreme Court’s legitimacy rests on its role as an independent interpreter of the Constitution, not as an arm of the political branches. Packing the Court turns it into a political prize and erodes public trust in the judiciary as an objective check on power.
4. Endangers Individual Rights A politicized Court is more likely to prioritize ideological outcomes over consistent protection of individual rights (life, liberty, property, and due process). SPOTM prioritizes the consistent defense of rights through objective law rather than shifting majorities.
5. Historical Precedent Warns Against It Past attempts at court-packing (most notably FDR’s failed 1937 plan) were widely recognized as threats to the constitutional balance. SPOTM values the separation of powers and checks and balances that have preserved ordered liberty for over two centuries.

SPOTM’s Recommended Approach

SPOTM supports a stable, independent, and principled judiciary:

• Preserve the traditional size of the Supreme Court (nine justices) unless changed through broad, principled consensus rather than partisan maneuvering.
• Appoint judges based on judicial philosophy (originalism, textualism, or consistent commitment to individual rights and limited government) rather than partisan loyalty.
• Focus on long-term cultural and legal renewal — electing presidents and senators who will appoint judges who respect the Constitution — instead of short-term structural manipulation.
• Reject any attempt by either party to pack the Court for ideological advantage.

SPOTM Summary Statement:

“Packing the Supreme Court with liberal/leftist judges (or any ideological bloc) is a profoundly misaligned policy that destroys constitutional norms, judicial independence, and long-term institutional stability. SPOTM supports preserving the traditional size and independence of the Court and appointing judges based on principled commitment to the Constitution and individual rights — not partisan power plays.”

This position flows directly from SPOTM’s commitment to limited government, constitutional order, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights against raw political power.

In addition:

Here’s more information on court-packing from a SPOTM perspective.

Historical Precedent: FDR’s 1937 Attempt

The most famous example is President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 plan to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to as many as 15 justices. His goal was to add liberal judges who would uphold New Deal programs that the existing Court had struck down as unconstitutional.

• The plan was widely criticized across party lines as a dangerous attack on judicial independence.
• It ultimately failed in Congress and damaged Roosevelt politically.
• SPOTM sees this as a classic case of a partisan power grab that threatened the separation of powers. The backlash helped preserve the traditional nine-justice norm for nearly 90 years.

Modern Proposals

Recent calls to pack the Court (especially after 2016–2020) typically aim to add 4+ liberal justices to shift the ideological balance. Proponents argue it counters conservative appointments or “restores balance.” SPOTM rejects this framing:

• It is fundamentally a partisan retaliation strategy rather than a principled reform.
• Once normalized, court-packing would become a recurring tool for whichever party holds power, leading to a politicized judiciary and loss of legitimacy.

SPOTM’s Deeper Concerns

• Institutional Stability: The Supreme Court’s fixed size and independence are part of the constitutional architecture that has provided long-term stability. Radical changes erode public trust in the judiciary as an objective guardian of rights.
• Separation of Powers: The judiciary is meant to be a check on the legislative and executive branches. Packing it turns the Court into an extension of the political branches.
• Long-Term Risk: Even if done for “good” causes today, it sets a precedent that future majorities can use for opposite ends. SPOTM values consistency and ordered liberty over short-term victories.
• Better Alternatives: Focus on appointing principled originalist/textualist judges, supporting term limits or age limits through constitutional amendment (if broadly supported), and cultural renewal to restore shared constitutional understanding.

SPOTM Summary:

“Court-packing is a misaligned partisan tactic that threatens judicial independence, constitutional norms, and long-term stability. SPOTM strongly opposes it in favor of preserving the traditional nine-justice Court and appointing judges committed to objective constitutional interpretation and the protection of individual rights.”

This remains consistent with SPOTM’s commitment to limited government, separation of powers, and institutional integrity.