Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

In Defense of the “Team of Nine”

10/19/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, planning on majoring in political science.

At his confirmation hearing in September of 2018, then-Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said that, if confirmed, he would “always strive to be a team player on the Team of Nine” [1]. Since his confirmation hearing and subsequent confirmation, many Democratic presidential candidates have been open to expanding this “Team of Nine,” including Elizabeth Warren [2], who has recently overtaken Biden for the top spot in the Democratic primary, according to recent polls [3]. Warren claims that such court-packing efforts would “depoliticiz[e]” the Supreme Court [2]. While Warren is correct that the Supreme Court is becoming increasingly politicized, expanding the Supreme Court is not the answer to this problem.

Recently, Supreme Court nominations have been front and center in American politics. After the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, former President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court [4]. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took no action on Garland’s nomination, leaving the seat vacant for the remainder of 2016 [5]. 

After President Donald Trump won the 2016 election, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to assume Scalia’s seat [6]. Democrats then filibustered Gorsuch’s nomination, causing McConnell to invoke the “nuclear option” and change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture on a Supreme Court nomination from 60 to 51 [7]. Gorsuch was subsequently confirmed on a 54-45 vote split largely along party lines [8]. However, by replacing a conservative justice in Scalia with another conservative in Gorsuch, the Court’s ideological balance remained relatively similar [9].

After Justice Anthony Kennedy retired, Trump nominated Kavanaugh to fill his seat [9]. This was seen as a much bigger change in the Court’s ideological balance, with Kavanaugh, a reliable conservative, replacing Kennedy, a relatively conservative justice, but one who tended to vote with liberals on certain key issues [10]. Kavanaugh was confirmed by a margin of 50-48, the smallest margin of confirmation for a Supreme Court Justice in the modern era [11].

It must be stated that the Supreme Court is a unique institution in American government. Out of the three branches of government, it is the only one that is not elected by the people, either directly or indirectly. The executive branch has the power of enforcement, and the president is in charge of enforcing the Supreme Court’s rulings. There have been times in the past where the president has ignored the Supreme Court’s decision, such as when President Andrew Jackson ignored the ruling of Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) [12].

Thus, the rulings of the Supreme Court rely upon the executive’s enforcement and the compliance of state and local governments. Because the job of enforcing and implementing the Supreme Court’s decision ultimately belongs to locally elected officials, it is thus of the utmost important that the public at-large sees the Court as legitimate. If the Court is expanded solely in order to reach certain ideological decisions, ordinary citizens will no longer see it as a nonpartisan, law-interpreting body. They will instead see the Court as a pawn beholden to one of the two major parties, based on whatever the current ideological balance of the Court is at the time.

Such “court packing” has been done before. The size of the Court changed several times between passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which mandated six Supreme Court justices, and the Judiciary Act of 1869, which established a nine-member Court. This number has remained unchanged for the past 150 years [13], and the result has been a stable judiciary.

The most famous unsuccessful court-packing plan was proposed by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the face of the Supreme Court knocking down many pieces of New Deal legislation, Roosevelt wanted to expand the Court to 15 justices [14]. To add six liberal justices to the Court would have not only remade the Court for Roosevelt’s tenure; it would have caused a leftward shift that would make the Supreme Court a liberal institution in perpetuity. Thus, the Court would always be seen as a rubber stamp for any liberal legislation or cause. Seeing it as the nakedly partisan power grab that it was, Congress, which Democrats controlled by a wide margin, rejected the plan [13]. Ever since, no president or Congress has seriously considered changing the size of the Supreme Court.

Which brings back us to today. The idea that expanding the Supreme Court would “depoliticize” it [2], as Elizabeth Warren claims, is laughable. Expanding the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of appointing two liberal justices would only entrench the idea that justices are no more than biased politicians in robes.

This is not to say that the Supreme Court has not already suffered in terms of its legitimacy in recent years. Only 38% of Americans express a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court, as of 2019 [15]. That figure has stayed relatively constant, though, for the last fifteen years. Adding justices to the Court risks having that number dropping even further. And if Americans do not have any faith in the Supreme Court, then why should the people that represent them enforce those decisions?

Anyone who seriously cares about the Court more than the partisan effects of its rulings should agree that the Court must remain at nine justices. And the addition of Kavanaugh has not shifted the Court dramatically far to the right, at least so far. Out of the 5-4 decisions that ideologically split the Court in the 2018 term, only 50% had the five Republican-appointed justices in the majority and the four Democratic-appointed justices in the minority [16]. The other half of such decisions all saw one Republican-appointed justice join the four Democratic-appointed justices. This is in stark contrast to the 2017 term when, with Justice Kennedy on the Court, all of these 5-4 decisions had the five Republican-appointed justices in the majority with the four Democratic-appointed justices in dissent.

The American judicial system, at every level, rests upon the belief of the citizens that its decisions are legitimate. Thus, in order to maintain this legitimacy, the Supreme Court must remain at nine justices. Democratic presidential candidates  should listen to the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Nine seems to be a good number” [17].

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

Citations:

[1] Mauro, T. (2018, September 05). Kavauagh Touts “Team of Nine.” Justice Holmes Saw It Differently: “Nine Scorpions in a Bottle.” Retrieved from https://law.stanford.edu/press/kavanaugh-touts-team-of-nine-justice-holmes-saw-it-differently-nine-scorpions-in-a-bottle/
[2] Everbett, B. and Levine, M. (2019, March 18). 2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-1223625
[3] 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination. (2019, October 05). Retrieved from https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
[4] Eilperin, J. and DeBonis, M. (2016, March 16). President Obama nominates Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-obama-to-nominate-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-sources-say/2016/03/16/3bc90bc8-eb7c-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
[5] Demirjian K. (2016, March 16). Republicans refuse to budge following Garland nomination to Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/03/16/republicans-refuse-to-budge-following-garland-nomination-to-supreme-court/
[6] Davis, J. and Lander, M. (2017, January 31). Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html
[7] Davis, S. (2017, April 06). Senate Pulls ‘Nuclear’ Trigger to Ease Gorsuch Nomination. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation
[8] de Vogue, A. and Berman, D. (2017, April 07). Neil Gorsuched Confirmed to the Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/neil-gorsuch-senate-vote/index.html
[9] Livni, E. (2017, January 31). Trump’s US Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is a lot like Scalia, with one key difference. Retrieved from https://qz.com/899622/trumps-us-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-is-a-lot-like-scalia-with-one-key-difference/
[10] Bradner, E., Biskupic, J. and Diamond, J. (2018, July 09). Trump picks Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/trump-supreme-court-pick/index.html
[11] Haberkorn, J. (2018, October 06). Senate narrowly approves Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court, cementing conservative majority. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-confirmed-20181006-story.html
[12] Ford, M. (2018, April 24). When the President Defies the Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/148108/president-defies-supreme-court
[13] Frazin, R. (2019, March 18). How many justices should be on the Supreme Court? It’s been a battle before. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/434620-supreme-courts-size-was-once-subject-of-division
[14] FDR’s “Court-Packing” Plan. Retrieved from https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/fdrs-court-packing-plan
[15] Confidence in Institutions. (2019). Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx
[16] Feldman, A. (2019, July 08). Empirical SCOTUS: Changes are afoot - 5-4 decisions during October Term 2018. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/empirical-scotus-changes-are-afoot-5-4-decisions-during-october-term-2018/
[17] Totenberg, N. (2019, July 24). Justice Ginsburg: ‘I Am Very Much Alive.’ Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​