Republicans fail to ease one of Trump's greatest fears as Supreme Court measure collapses

Constitutional questions test judicial philosophy as Americans debate the role of unelected judges.

Source: Fox News
1 min read
Why This Matters

Nine justices has been the number since 1869. That's not some arbitrary line Trump pulled out of thin air, it's the number every American who's ever thought about the Supreme Court has grown up with. So when House Democrats voted down a straightforward amendment to lock that number in place, the reasonable question is why anyone would object to keeping things exactly as they've been for over 150 years.

New Republican Times Editorial Board

Republicans fail to ease one of Trump's greatest fears as Supreme Court measure collapses
Image via Fox News

House Democrats blocked a constitutional amendment to cap Supreme Court justices at nine after President Donald Trump warned of future court packing.

Original source:

Read at Fox News

How We See It

New Republican Times Editorial Board

Nine justices has been the number since 1869. That's not some arbitrary line Trump pulled out of thin air, it's the number every American who's ever thought about the Supreme Court has grown up with. So when House Democrats voted down a straightforward amendment to lock that number in place, the reasonable question is why anyone would object to keeping things exactly as they've been for over 150 years.

The answer, of course, is that leaving the door open matters more to them than the institution does. If you're not planning to pack the court someday, voting to make sure nobody ever can costs you nothing. Democrats had a free chance to take that weapon off the table permanently and chose not to. That tells you something about where their heads actually are, whatever they say in press releases about "judicial independence."

Trump's warning wasn't paranoia, it was pattern recognition. Court packing has been floated seriously by members of his own opposition for years now, usually whenever a ruling doesn't go their way. Blocking an amendment that simply codifies the status quo doesn't protect the court from politicization. It preserves the option to politicize it later, on their own timeline, when it's convenient.

Nobody serious thinks nine justices is a hardship. It's just the number. Refusing to write that down isn't caution, it's a hedge, and voters should notice which side wanted the hedge and which side wanted the amendment.

Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.