As the third branch of government in the United States, the Supreme Court has held tremendous power for most of the countryís history. Originally, the judicial branch was by far the weakest sector of the federal government. However, the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, which allows the Supreme Court to limit the power of Congress by declaring certain legislature unconstitutional, has turned the Supreme Court into one of the most important and consequential aspects of government.
Due to its power and the increasing skepticism about the effectiveness of the nominating system of Supreme Court justices, many of the rules and regulations surrounding how the Supreme Court is run have come under criticism. During the race for Democratic presidential nominee, many candidates proposed bold reforms and the Supreme Court became a major voting issue.
The recent calls for Supreme Court reform have stemmed from the fact that President Trump will most likely have nominated three Supreme Court justices by the end of his term. This is not entirely unprecedented as Ronald Reagen also nominated three, Richard Nixon and Harry Truman nominated four, and Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated five. However, the haste of Trump’s appointments, which have been possible due to the Republican majority in the Senate, has caused great controversy.
Much of this controversy fuels the argument for court-packing. Initially tried in 1936 by Franklin D. Roosevelt to increase the number of pro-New Deal justices, court-packing is not a new concept. It involves adding more justices to the Supreme Court, inevitably shifting the ideological balance of the justices to a particular side. Since the Constitution does not state how many justices must be on the bench, this change is possible.
With what will be a significant Republican-appointed majority in the Supreme Court if the recent nomination goes through, many see this majority as unfair and dangerous. With this in mind, the structure of the Supreme Court could see serious change in the coming years. Democratic nominee Joe Biden has been vague on questions about court-packing and said that he will put a committee together to consider the issue.
Another proposed reform is setting term limits for Supreme Court justices. Those who support the institution of term limits hope that removing life-long appointments will allow Supreme Court justices to be appointed more consistently throughout different presidential terms, depoliticize the current way confirmation is handled, and keep the court in line with the current views of the American public. While the first point is in direct response to Trump’s speedy appointments, the latter two summarize broader problems many believe plague the Supreme Court.
Firstly, the life-long appointments and general old age of the majority of the justices lead younger generations to feel underrepresented. In addition, term-limits aim to stop the current political maneuvering used to keep certain constitutional philosophies prevalent in the court.
In terms of specific and immediate change, Roe v. Wade, which declared abortion as a constitutional right, may be overturned with such a large majority. The Obamacare health insurance law is another contested issue the Supreme Court could tackle in the upcoming session. With a new 6-3 conservative majority after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation and a controversial election, the future of the Supreme Court will continue to be a highly debated topic.
