Packing the Court                                                                                          #167

By  Hank Silverberg 

I find myself, for the first time, in opposition to something that President Biden has been floating around. Actually, it's the left wing of the Democratic party which has been promoting the idea of increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Biden, who has been a bit non-committal on the proposal, has agreed to set up a 36 member bi-partisan commission to study the Court.

(U.S. Supreme Court)/

They have 180 days to look at changes, though the commission will not be making specific recommendations.  In Washington such commissions rarely produce anything meaningful.  And in this case, I think that would be a good thing. 

Biden launches 'court-packing' commission (msn.com)

The reasoning behind changing the court size is as old as our Republic. Politics! 

The high court now has a conservative slant thanks to THREE appointments made by the man Mr. Biden keeps calling "the former guy."  

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barrett have tilted the makeup of the Court to the right, and that could have significant impact on decisions that will affect our lives for the next 30 years. A number of those decisions could be very distasteful to the average American.   

So Democrats have resurrected something that has been used in the past: change the size of the Court. That would allow Biden to appoint new members and balance out the Court's political bias.  

The U.S. Constitution gave certain powers to the High Court but it did NOT codify the number of justices to serve on the bench.  That number has changed from time to time. There were six Supreme Court Justices under George Washington, only five under John Adams, but ten under Abraham Lincoln. The numbers changed based on the politics of the time, and it would take an entire American History 101 class to explain  all the twists and turns. Let's just say it was set at nine by Ulysses S. Grant in 1869 after the High Court's decision that paper money was unconstitutional. Grant increased the Court size from seven to nine to overturn that decision, which otherwise would have turned the country's economy upside down.

There have been nine justices ever since. 

Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the size in 1937, when the High Court kept overturning a lot of his New Deal legislation.

Here was his proposal: All Justices older than 70 would be asked to resign. If any of them refused, FDR would then be allowed to nominate an additional Justice to the bench. At the time, six of the nine Justices fit that category and it would have increased the Court to as many as 15 judges. It didn't happen. The Senate rejected the legislation 70-20.  

For me, the bigger problem than the size of the Court is the lifetime appointment. The Constitution doesn't specify lifetime appointments either. What it says is that the Justices may hold their seat "during good Behavior" (Article 3, Section 1). The only way they leave the Court is through resignation, death or impeachment by Congress for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Death or serious illness has been the most common reason for someone leaving the court.  

I would suggest the best way to  make a change in the Court is to pass legislation that would set up a term limit for Supreme Court justices. How about  a term of 30 years with a mandate they could serve only one term? That would take some of the politics out of SCOTUS decisions like the life time appointment is supposed to do now, but it would produce a higher turnover of Justices allowing for more frequent appointments. If possible, Congress could make it retroactive, so that anyone on the Court now who has already served 30 years would have to retire.    

That would mean Justice Clearance Thomas would have to leave immediately, and Justice Steven Breyer would have to go in three years. That still leaves open the possibility that someone else would resign or die.  

Of course, there is a problem. There would likely be a court challenge to any legislation making these changes, and the ultimate mediator of such a lawsuit would, in fact be the current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  

But practically, the U.S. Senate, which can't seem to agree on anything right now,  is likely to react the same way it did with FDR and overwhelmingly reject court packing. 

 FDR's "Court-Packing" Plan | Federal Judicial Center (fjc.gov)

Busting Myths

Separating fact from fiction these days is hard. But in the middle of a pandemic your life could depend on it.  Yes, the pandemic is still with us. Despite some good news about the inoculation rate and some easing on the restrictions, the myths and fake information about Covid-19 and the vaccines  continue to spread at an alarming rate. 

The World Health Organization has dubbed it an 

"infodemic," and researchers at Virginia Tech have been studying the phenomenon. They are looking at how such fake information on social media influences people's plans to receive the vaccine. We're not talking about intentional disinformation from say, Russian spies, but rather things that are simply wrong that get spread unknowingly on-line by your average person.

The researchers produced a warning in a social media post that discussed misinformation about the vaccine. It was designed to look like it was coming from the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci, or an individual health care provider. The study used 1,048 people in the Appalachian region of 13 states, half in rural areas and half not, who were sent  either a neutral post or a warning post about misinformation.  

Virginia researchers are studying COVID-19 vaccine myths. A few “are sure hard to budge.” - The Virginian-Pilot (pilotonline.com)

After seeing this post, 40% were less likely to rate an erroneous story about the virus as being accurate and 60% were less likely to share it. That's encouraging.   

But here are some other findings which should scare you: 

*Almost half the respondents believed a popular internet myth that the vaccine can cause infertility. 

That's TOTALLY FALSE.  

*About 40% believed a myth that there is a high risk of side effects, including paralysis.    

That too is TOTALLY FALSE. 

Other findings all involving FAKE INFORMATION: 

*40% believed that Bill Gates had created the vaccine to install a microchip tracking device in people.  

*20% believed that the vaccine isn't real because the pandemic isn't real. 

The Virginia Tech survey also found that trust in science and trust in health care were the biggest predictors of a person's readiness to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Younger people and those in rural areas were less likely to say they'd get a shot.  

THIS is why the pandemic still exists. It will not go away as long as people are skeptical about what they read on line or hear from friends. 

Unless official sources pound out accurate information and become more consistent and prevelant,  Covid-19 may still be with us in 2022.  

Cancer in the GOP

More evidence that the Grand Old Party may be self destructing. A new Gallop Poll shows the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republican or leaning towards the Republicans is at its lowest point in the last decade. Only 40% of those polled last month say the are Republicans or Independents leaning towards the GOP. That compares to 49% who identify as Democrats or are Independents leaning toward the Democratic party. 

That's the largest differential between the two parties since 2012. But it's not all good news for the Democrats either. The same poll finds 44% overall consider themselves Independent voters, though more of them learn toward the Democratic party than the GOP. That is up from 38% in 2020 That means both parties are losing staunch supporters but the Republicans are bleeding faster.    

Quarterly Gap in Party Affiliation Largest Since 2012 (gallup.com)

All this comes out as former House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, who left Congress out of total frustration with the system, released his new memoir. He is highly critical of his former colleagues, actually calling fellow Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, a "political terrorist."  

Ex-Speaker John Boehner calls fellow Republican Jim Jordan a ‘political terrorist’ (yahoo.com)

Boehner left Congress before Donald Trump became the GOP nominee in 2015.  When he left he complained that the right wing had taken over the GOP.  In his memoir he called Senator Ted Cruz "a jerk." 

Boehner may be right. But he wasn't a very good House Speaker. He let the right wing takeover occur on his watch. I won't be buying his book. 

Dumbest Quote of the Week

For this week's dumbest quote we go to a big source for stupid comments, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.  

This week he urged his fellow Republicans at the "Save America Summit" (that title is ridiculous) to oust the GOP senators who  voted to keep Obamacare. Here's the quote: 

"This is our problem: seven Republicans voted to keep Obamacare. You remember John McCain doing it. We won't name all others, but that's the thing, this is our problem," 

Yes, McCain, who has since died, was one of the GOP senators who voted to keep Obamacare. His thumbs down vote, a brave move from a man who knew he was dying, is emblazoned in our collective memory.  The vote to keep Obamacare was  49-51. Only TWO other Republicans voted with the Democrats. It is easy to check.    

Senator Paul, who is known for saying a lot of dumb things over the years, is apparently also math challenged. 

If the people at that "Save America Summit" really want to save the country, they probably should start by kicking Rand Paul out of the U. S. Senate.  

       (Your suggestions and comments are welcome)

Copies of my latest book "The Campaign" can be purchased at the links below. Or you can buy a copy by emailing me at: 

HankSilverberg@gmail.com  

for instructions on how to get a copy at a reduced price and with a signature)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B084Q7K6M5/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-campaign-hank-silverberg/1126429796