House Republican ponders shrinking Supreme Court

How far have congressional Republicans strayed from responsible rhetoric on the federal judiciary? Don’t ask.

Congress can’t lower judges’ salaries or fire them — provisions tucked into the Constitution by the Framers, who watched judges serve at the whim of King George III. But lawmakers can eliminate their positions altogether.

“We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court,” says Rep. Steve King. “It doesn’t take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table.”

It’s the kind of reckless language King has been using about the courts for a while now.

“[Courts] have defied federal law. And this confrontation now is the confrontation between the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the will of the people and the judicial branch of government,” said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican. “Constitutional authority will either be imposed upon the judicial branch of government, or we might as well board up the Capitol and turn this country over to the whims of the judges.”

Mr. King said he is planning a legislative strategy that will involve offering amendments to appropriations bills designed to “put the courts back in their appropriate constitutional place,” but said it is too early to say exactly what he will pursue.

In fairness, King acknowledged to Newsweek that his idea about reducing the size of the Supreme Court is not, right now, “under serious consideration.” That’s the good news. The bad news is the line between cranks ranting about politics in a bar and elected officials in Congress ranting about politics to Newsweek has been blurred. In fact, it no longer exists in any meaningful way.

There was a time — I think it was called the latter half of the 20th century — when lawmakers would not pop-off in the press about threats against the federal judiciary, reducing the Supreme Court to one justice, and putting the courts “in their place.”

Those were good times, weren’t they?

Well, let’s put this in historical perspective. FDR threatened to add extra members to the Supreme Court after they voted consistently against his New Deal policies. I forget how and why he backed down.

However there has been historical precedent for this sort of anti-judicial game-playing.

DISCLAIMER: I am a supporter of the status quo. I think it’s best solution constitutionally to have a very independent judiciary — however much I dislike the current conservative bent of the Rehnquist Court.

  • I BELIEVE THAT THE COURTS HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS TO REDUCE, EXPAND OR IN ANY OTHER WAY ALTER THE COURT SYSTEM. THAT POINT PLAYED IN F.D.R.’S DECISION TO NOT PACK THE COURT.
    THE ONLY ACTUAL WAYS THAT CONGRESS CAN RADICALLY ALTER THE COURTS INVOLVE GUNS.
    THANK GOD FOR THE CONSTITUTION . . .

  • Well, it’s all very simple though, isn’t it. The farther they push the rhetoric into the extreme, the more the merely hard-right comes to seem moderate.

    It’s been working for them for, oh, a generation or so.

  • “I forget how and why he backed down.”

    He didn’t back down — he had his head handed to him in the Senate, which voted 70-20 against even a watered down version of FDR’s plan. On the other hand, at least some of the Supremes got the message, because they suddenly began taking a much more expansive view of the interstate commerce clause.

    Which may be what this is all about — pure and simply mau mauing. (Or political extortion, depending on your ideological point of view)

  • Those were good times, weren’t they?

    Saw a bumpersticker for the first time last week:

    America — She was a helluva country, wasn’t she?

  • Comments are closed.