I think that it is time for me to take a stance on the issue of whether, if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, they should expand the Supreme Court to 11 justices.
I do not want to equivocate on this issue, so I have used the Republican arguments to help me make my decision.
Here is the underlying rationale:
POINT 1: There is no constitutional requirement.
In October 2016, with the expectation that Hillary Clinton would win the Presidency, multiple Republican Senators vowed to prevent ANY nominee that she would make during here entire term from being confirmed to the Supreme Court. The position was well summed up by a statement from the CATO institute:
“If Hillary Clinton is president it would be completely decent, honorable, and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee she names.”
The Republican position was that there would be nothing wrong, unsupportable or inappropriate to leave the Supreme Court at 8 Justices.
POINT 2: Traditional rules in the Senate do not apply
On April 6, 2017 the Senate voted to throw away hundreds of years of tradition. For the first time in the history of the country the Senate chose to do away with the need to reach 60 votes to approve a Supreme Court nominee to the bench. Using their power as a majority, for the first time in the history of the country, the Senate chose to change the rules to prohibit a filibuster for such an appointment.
The Republican position was that there was nothing wrong, unsupportable or inappropriate in changing the rules to achieve their goals if THEY were in power.
POINT 3: Respect for Judicial philosophies should be observed
On January 31, 2017 the White House said:
“President Trump has been clear and consistent about the fact that he would nominate a Supreme Court Justice that represents the principles espoused by the late Supreme Court Justice (Scalia).”
This was the underlying strategy for the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Out of respect for the death of a Supreme Court icon, the replacement judge should have consistent values and approaches to the law.
The Republican position was that there was nothing wrong, unsupportable or inappropriate in using this strategy for replacing Justice Scalia; but this philosophy WAS NOT followed for replacing Justice Ginsburg.
POINT 4: Control of the White House and the Senate should yield outcomes
Intellectual origami has provided the foundational arguments for why the situation in 2016 regarding Judge Garland is entirely different than that today with Judge Barrett. The prop for this game of Brain Twister, was that in 2016 the Senate and the White House were held by different parties, today they are held by the same one.
The Republican position was that there was nothing wrong, unsupportable or inappropriate in wielding their political power when they could.
MY CHOICE
Using these points it is clear from my Republican friends, that there is nothing wrong in changing the size of the court, nothing wrong with changing any rules that would hamper this change, nothing wrong with trying to reestablish the philosophical balance that existed before the death of Justice Ginsberg, and nothing wrong with using the political power granted by the voters should the White House and the Senate flip in November.
THE COURT SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO 11 JUSTICES WITH 2 VERY LIBERAL JUSTICES APPOINTED.