Exploring the Possibility of Expanding the Supreme Court

Expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court is often discussed as a potential method to address issues within the judiciary and to balance political influence. However, such an expansion is fraught with political challenges and legal complexities. This article delves into the feasibility of court expansion, particularly under the Biden administration, and examines the current political and practical considerations.

Legal Authority and Historical Context

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Instead, it grants Congress the authority to set the number. Historically, the Court has been expanded and contracted, most notably during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in 1937 when the court-packing plan was proposed under the guise of promoting judicial efficiency. This proposal failed due to widespread condemnation and the threat it posed to democratic principles.

Theoretically, if the Democrats control both the presidency and Congress in the future, they could introduce a bill to expand the Supreme Court. However, the likelihood of such a bill passing in the current political climate is slim. As of now, the Republican-controlled Senate would have the power to block any such legislation, minimizing the possibility of an expansion.

Current Judicial Landscape

Currently, the Supreme Court is functioning with nine justices, and the court's decisions are often highly politically charged. Critics argue that this political polarization impacts the court's impartiality, leading to a series of split decisions rather than a supermajority ruling. This phenomenon suggests that the court may be influenced by political ideology rather than constitutional interpretation.

For instance, cases such as Roe v. Wade and Citizens United have become emblematic of the court's political leanings. These decisions have significant societal implications and often resonate strongly with political factions. It is this polarization that has led many to question the court's effectiveness and to advocate for reform.

Proposed Reforms and Their Feasibility

One proposed reform is to limit the number of justices on the court but require a random selection process for cases. This would address the issue of strategic case selection by litigants who may wait for a favorable court composition before bringing their cases to the Supreme Court. A random selection process would not only diversify the pool of justices but also make the court's decisions less predictable and more aligned with constitutional principles rather than political whims.

However, implementing such a random selection system is not without its challenges. It would necessitate a significant shift in the legal and political landscape, including the acceptance of random draw mechanisms and the establishment of new procedures for case allocation.

Conclusion

The question of expanding the Supreme Court is a complex one that involves deep-seated political and legal considerations. While it may be theoretically possible to expand the court under certain conditions, the current political environment makes such an outcome highly improbable. Instead, focusing on reforms that mitigate political influence, such as a random selection process for cases, may offer a more pragmatic and practical approach to enhancing the court's impartiality and effectiveness.