Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Susan Linehan's avatar

I actually think FDR's court-packing plan made sense--he didn't add a justice whenever another reached 70 but when that justice refused to retire. It was a good way of keeping the "life time appointment" permissible because there is nothing that says a justice can't cut his appointment short by retiring. Nowadays, the age would have to be rather older.

Why did Congress reject it? I suspect in part because despite its unpopular decisions, it was still seen as a respectable institution, even revered. As far as I know, there wasn't a constant stream of scandal involving money grubbing justices. (I have no idea whether there was a recusal problem). The rule of law has ALWAYS involved respecting as a matter of law the majority opinions of the justices even if you disagree with those opinions, so long as the justice gives arguable reasons and doesn't appear to be personally corrupt. The response is to try to find workarounds via Congress that meet the objections of the court. And at LEAST the FDR court invoked the sense of predictability that goes along with adherence to precedent until at least some justices realized that a tipping point had been reached, with precedent both unpopular and actually hurtful to the country as a whole. (I'm not saying that happened with Roberts, but as an example of the respect felt for the court).

We don't live in that world today.

Expand full comment
Christopher Sheahen's avatar

Thanks for a concise explanation of the “switch in time”. I haven’t read a better one.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts