www.mozilla.com Weather Central
Voices
Headlines

Embarrassing economists -10/24/2014, 9:13 AM

Sherow for House -10/24/2014, 9:13 AM

It can't get crazier (wanna bet?) -10/24/2014, 9:04 AM

Digital distractions -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Orman for Senate -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal persecutors -10/23/2014, 10:00 AM

Kids do count -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

Needing the past in the future? -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

In praise of hunting -10/22/2014, 10:30 AM

What is a CID? Will it work for mall? -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Judging importance on the ballot -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Kansas Speaks -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Paying for schools -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Joining forces for Orman -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Research before voting -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Davis is moderate? -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The most important election in your lifetime -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Huelskamp stands out -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Kansas farm interests -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Keeping unfounded reports from 'going viral' -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The age of cynicism -10/18/2014, 9:02 AM

Preventable diseases -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Second term needed -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Kansans deserve better -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Officially killing Americans -10/17/2014, 10:27 AM

New era at FHSU -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Roberts is right choice -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Crumbling Constitution -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Redbelly's future -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Kansas deserves better -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Remember to vote on Nov. 4 -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

You almost feel sorry for Sean Groubert -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Register to vote -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Living on that 70 percent -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

New bullying problem for schools: parents -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Cheerios, marriage equality, the Supreme Court -10/13/2014, 9:49 AM

Wedded bliss -10/12/2014, 5:54 PM

Who is the real fraud? -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Teenagers 'make some noise' -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Not so private property -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal funding -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Teacher indoctrination -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Vote Republican -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Non-partisan politics -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Teen driver safety week Oct. 19 to 25 -10/9/2014, 9:04 AM

FHSU party -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Poverty in America -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Let the women serve -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Time for new direction -10/8/2014, 9:49 AM

Improving Kansas economically -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Water abusers -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Play safe on the farm -10/8/2014, 9:34 AM

Where the money comes from -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The president's security -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

Marriage equality -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The sins of the father are visited -10/6/2014, 9:02 AM

Cannabis in America: The bottom line -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

A reason to celebrate -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

Gov. shields wealthy from paying for schools -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

Passionate protest in defense of civil disorder -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

October is time for baseball and, of course, film premieres -10/4/2014, 2:16 PM

Alley cleanup -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Will the West defend itself? -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Find another school -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

It's better now -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

The answer is to bomb Mexico? -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

Falling revenue -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

School facilities -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Look ahead, not back -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Secret Service needs to step up its game -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Roosevelts were true leaders -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

Moral bankruptcy -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

Expect some sort of change in Topeka -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

'A tale of two countries' -9/29/2014, 9:59 AM

The last of the Willie Horton ads? -9/29/2014, 9:59 AM

Finding answers to the future of Kansas -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

College: Where religious freedom goes to die -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

Honoring Hammond -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

Do statistical disparities mean injustice? -9/26/2014, 9:53 AM

World university rankings -9/26/2014, 9:52 AM

Kansas experiment -9/26/2014, 9:52 AM

Two anti-choice parties -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Not in the same old Kansas anymore -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Domestic violence -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Back to war we go -9/24/2014, 9:55 AM

Piling on the NFL -9/24/2014, 9:54 AM

Emma Watson looking for a few good men -9/24/2014, 9:54 AM

Renter runaround -9/23/2014, 7:32 PM

Enough is enough -9/23/2014, 9:02 AM

Life of politics in the state -9/23/2014, 9:02 AM

What is and is not child abuse -9/22/2014, 9:30 AM

Cannabis politics and research -9/22/2014, 9:30 AM

Future of The Mall -9/21/2014, 6:14 PM

Multiculturalism is a failure -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

State education rankings -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

Kobach gone wild -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

Bias prevents civil discussion of education issues -9/18/2014, 9:35 AM

Immigration is American -9/18/2014, 9:35 AM

Costs to states not expanding Medicaid -9/17/2014, 10:14 AM

Medicare threats -9/17/2014, 10:12 AM

myTown Calendar

SPOTLIGHT
[var top_story_head]

Court packing and unpacking

Published on -11/6/2013, 9:24 AM

Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story

Back in 1937, then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, frustrated with decisions of the Supreme Court majority blocking critical aspects of his New Deal program, announced that he would seek to expand the court to as many as 15 justices. Under the bill he proposed, the president would have the authority to appoint one new justice for every justice who was older than 70 years and 6 months -- up to a total of six new justices.

The legislation ultimately failed. One reason often cited was the "switch in time that saved nine" -- the decision by Justice Owen Roberts to vote with the pro-New Deal block for the first time and uphold the minimum-wage law passed by the state of Washington. But equally important was the fact that as popular as Roosevelt was, the public did not support "court packing" in order to achieve ideological support.

All of this makes the latest Republican attacks on "court packing" particularly ironic. President Obama is not seeking to expand the size of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, long considered the second most important court in the land. There are supposed to be 11 judges on that court; presently, there are only eight, with three vacancies.

Rather, it is the Republicans who are seeking to change the size of the court to prevent the president from appointing highly qualified individuals to serve.

"It's clear they're trying to pack the D.C. court," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, made the same point in an opinion piece on FoxNews.com: "Republicans should remain united in blocking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's attempt to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is America's second-most-influential judicial body."

Filling vacancies with highly qualified individuals is not court packing. Changing the size of a court for ideological reasons is.

And so it was on Thursday that, by a vote of 55 to 38, Republican senators blocked the nomination of Patricia Ann Millett to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Just to be clear, 55 senators voted to move forward with her nomination, but that was five votes short of the number needed to end the Republican filibuster.

Just to be clear, no one even suggested that Millett, a leading appellate attorney, a veteran of the Justice Department and former assistant solicitor general, was unqualified for the position. To be honest, it's hard to imagine how you could be any more qualified. When her name was being considered for an appeals court in Virginia, the bar found her to be well qualified.

What happened last week is that Millett became a pawn in a game that has nothing to do with qualifications or the rule of law and everything to do with the sort of politics that the country rejected when it was FDR trying to pull it off.

The Republicans, while misusing the terms "court packing," make no bones about this fight being purely political. Right now, there are four Republican appointees on the D.C. circuit and four Democratic appointees. Republicans want to keep it that way.

Of course, if they won the presidency, they would want to fill those vacant seats. But because they lost, all of a sudden, the court is too big.

There are currently five Republican appointees on the Supreme Court and four Democratic appointees. Honestly, I'd like to see more Democratic appointees. But that's what elections are about.

The Founding Fathers were pretty wise men. They created a Constitution with checks and balances, with three branches of government, including an independent judiciary. The winning candidate for president gets to appoint judges. The job of the Senate should be to ensure that those nominees are qualified, not to play numbers games in an effort to impose their ideological will on the court. Thursday might look like a victory for Republicans, but it is a defeat for anyone who cares about the rule of law.

Susan Estrich is a columnist, commentator and law and political science professor at USC.

digg delicious facebook stumbleupon google Newsvine
More News and Photos

Associated Press Videos

AP Breaking News