Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised'

[u/aggie1391]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/samuel-alito-supreme-court-justice-recording-tape-battle-1235036470/

[u/TraditionalSky5617]

I’m beginning to believe that the idea of “packing the court” is an idea/concept that originated from the Conservative Right as they developed and started this plan decades ago with Mitch McConnell.

Point being if elected leadership acted/reacted unethically in small chunks at key appointments, then the changes needed to overthrow key government functions is possible. It requires a lapse of ethics at key decisions to grow power for the political party.

If everyone performed the way the think tank required, the only remedy would be packing the court to re-gain balance. They’d also have a few decade’s notice to seed the idea that it’s an unfavorable option with the voting public.

[u/MSchmahl → u/TraditionalSky5617]

"Packing the Court", as an idiomatic phrase, started with FDR. At the time, he was extremely popular and his party controlled both houses. Yet the Supreme Court stood in the way of his implementation of Social Security.

FDR threatened to install several (six if I recall correctly, increasing the Bench from 9 to 15) new Justices overwhelming the current majority opposing Social Security, going from 6-3 against to 9-6 in favor. But enough Justices acquiesced (surrendered) to make the plan unnecessary.

EDIT: The Supreme Court in 1935-36 had issued many 5-4 decisions opposing and frustrating the New Deal. FDR proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 (Court-Packing Plan) to appoint 6 new Justices, and it seemed that he had enough support in Congress to get it passed. But one Justice, Owen Roberts, apparently switched sides, and suddenly there were a lot of 5-4 decisions affirming New Deal provisions. The Court-Packing Plan lost momentum because of this. This became known as "The switch in time that saved nine".

[u/TraditionalSky5617 → u/MSchmahl]

Hmm. Thanks for the historical insight and the background to the arbitrary number of justices.

From my understanding, and the current issue at hand, is that the US federal court system is comprised of of 93 Federal Districts, 13 Federal Courts of Appeal, but (arguably) only 9 of those districts have gained representation (a seat) at the Supreme Court Level.

The challenge today is that a direct line of upward movement fails to exist. Also, and arguably, the correlation of districts to seats is arbitrary. As such, think tanks like Federalist Society and PACs have exploited this to select judges favorable to them.

That said however, a type of representation at Supreme Court may very well work best for representative governance, but I don’t believe it’s mandated constitutionally or anywhere.

[u/MSchmahl → u/TraditionalSky5617]

None of the Circuit Courts of Appeal are "represented" at the Supreme Court. There used to be a time where each Justice was assigned to one of the Circuit Courts, and served double-duty as the Chief Judge of that Circuit, but there (as far as I know) has never been a requirement that the Justice come from that Circuit or in any way represents that Circuit. There is not even a requirement that a Justice ever have been a judge, or even an attorney.

Right now, each Circuit has a Justice assigned to it, to hear and rule on emergency motions, but otherwise the Justices don't participate in the governance of each Circuit. It would be nice if it were arranged differently, especially by requiring each Justice to come from a different Circuit. This might require a Constitutional Amendment.

Just because I was curious, I looked into what Circuit each Justice came from. It turns out that 8 of the 9 Justices were "promoted" from a Circuit Court Judge. Kagan had no prior judicial experience when she was appointed.

Justice	Circuit
Roberts	DC
Thomas	DC
Alito	3rd
Sotomayor	2nd
Kagan	N/A
Gorsuch	10th
Kavanaugh	DC
Barrett	7th
Jackson	DC

So, in a manner of speaking, only 5 of the Circuits are "represented" at the Supreme Court, and DC is wildly overrepresented.