Court-Packing Quotes

There has been a sea change in the way Democrats view and talk about the Supreme Court. Democrats used to respectfully disagree with the justices. Now they call them illegitimate and corrupt, partisan and extreme.

If the people desire changes in the highest judicial tribunal in the land, the people can speak with their power to amend their own Constitution.

In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body…. Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution - Judges who will retain in the Courts the judicial functions of a court, and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed.

The case was always a difficult one, but the form the opinions took would seem to indicate such a marked cleavage in the Supreme Court that it may be, and probably is, a forecast of what we may expect with reference to almost any form of social legislation that Congress may enact. Apparently there are at least four justices who are against any attempt to use the power of the federal government for bettering general conditions, except within the narrowest limitations. This is a terrific handicap and brings up again, rather acutely, matters we have previously discussed, including a proposed constitutional amendment .

… whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

Now that the Court has declared money to be speech, I say we replace the current Court with some Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, George Washingtons, a couple of Susan B. Anthony's, Roosevelts, Hamiltons, a Sacajawea or two, and an Abe Lincoln to cover Scalia in full.

The judiciary is not supposed to be the dominant branch of the federal government. It is supposed to be one of three equal branches. For now, Republicans have the upper hand because Democrats don’t have the votes in Congress to change the law. But the harsh recent [Democrat] criticism is intended to be an early step in a long campaign to constrain the court.

I think we’ve been preparing and anticipating for there being these egregious overreaches by members of the judiciary appointed by a right-wing Republican Party, whose goal for a very long time was to just pack these Courts with partisan Judges often under qualified or completely unqualified for their role. And so there has been thought I believe given to this. Senator Ron Wyden has already issued statements, for example, advising what we should do in situations like this, which I concur, which is that I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling.

It was a glorious day of triumph for the working people of this country when the odious decision of the Supreme Court forbidding the enactment of State minimum-wage laws for women was swept aside; and let me say that the man responsible for that great humane victory, singly and alone is President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Roosevelt got a chance to name an amazing nine justices of the Supreme Court. He was not namby-pamby on this question. He wanted people who shared his views, he wanted liberals, and he wanted lots of them.

There is only one excuse for packing the [Supreme] Court and that is to change it.

I have not reached a considered position on the question of court-packing. Although I don't think we should be laughing at it.

As with other issues—taxes, climate, court-packing—the Biden administration is confusing the nation’s rejection of Donald Trump with an endorsement of a progressive agenda. But if voters wanted far-left policies, the Democratic House majority wouldn’t be so puny, the Senate wouldn’t be evenly split, and Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would be president.

Americans revere both the Constitution and an independent Court that applies the document's provisions. The Court has done many excellent things in our history, and few people are willing to see its power broken. The difficulty with all proposals to respond to the Court when it behaves unconstitutionally is that they would create a power to destroy the Court's essential work as well.

If the Constitution, as interpreted by the Court, prevents the proper solution of our social and economic problems, should we do something to the Constitution to meet the difficulty, or should we do something to the Supreme Court?

It's going to mean four or five justices, super liberal, placed on the Supreme Court. Our country will never, ever be the same.

The weapon which the president has chosen to achieve his end [packing the Supreme Court] is a two-way sort. It may serve the cause of liberty today but tomorrow it could prove just as effective in the hands of a despotic reactionary.

Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court.