Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A packed court would neuter judicial independence and strengthen the president

U.S. Supreme Court
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Strand is president of the Congressional Institute, a nonprofit that seeks to help members of Congress better serve their constituents and their constituents better understand Congress.

Congressional observers will remember Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous remark when the fate of the Obamacare bill was on the line a decade ago: The House needed to "pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."

Now former Vice President Joe Biden's refusal to tell the nation his views on court-packing, unless he wins the presidency, is a reminder of those poorly chosen words.

Court-packing is adding seats to the Supreme Court or other benches, not replacing an open seat. A court-packing scheme would be a massive shift in power from the judiciary to the executive branch, one that eliminates one of the most important safeguards built into our Constitution. Over several decades, Congress has steadily ceded power to the president by ignoring its oversight mandate, not making tough budget decisions, handing over spending prerogatives and allowing administrations of both parties to substitute regulations for legislative action.

Court-packing would be a fundamental shift of judicial independence that leads down a very dangerous road to excessive executive power — because it would mean presidents could add politically sympathetic members until the Supreme Court is little more than a rubber stamp of the personal partisan policy preferences of the president.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

And if a future president acquires the bulk of the powers the Constitution gave not only Congress but also the Supreme Court, such a dangerous amount of concentrated power would undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances.

In the fall of 2013, when Democrats were the Senate majority and eliminated the effective 60-vote threshold for almost all nominations, Mitch McConnell was the Republican minority leader warning the other side "you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." This week, of course, it was the GOP leveraging its majority power to seat Amy Coney Barrett on the high court just days before the election — and the minority Democrats crying foul and warning the other side it will rue the day.

But confirming judges to existing open seats is not court-packing. Court-packing means creating new judicial positions and filling them with judges believed to be on "your" side. This is what threatens the delicate balance between our three branches. Consider this: A federal court rules an executive order is unlawful, and the president gets a Congress run by his party to add three seats to the Supreme Court — so he can name justices he can count on to overturn that original ruling. That is court-packing. And it is dangerous to create a rubber stamp on one party's rule in Washington.

Every campaign season, the parties and outside groups square off for what they agree will be The Most Important Election Ever. That's led to voter fatigue, which is compounded by the media's shiny-object coverage that leaves people lurching from one story to the next. A recent report by my organization concluded that independent voters are weary of political rhetoric. They want clear plans, clear ideas and clear approaches to solving the very big challenges we're facing.

The Constitution establishes a government that makes laws to protect the entire community, without infringing on the rights of individuals. As George Washington wrote in his letter transmitting the completed Constitution to Congress: "Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. ... It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which must be reserved."

This is the role of the Supreme Court, which the Framers established as an independent protector of individual rights against the legislative will of the majority, or the arbitrary use of power by the executive. A Supreme Court subjected to court-packing would surrender its independence and be judicially neutered.

Beyond that lies the real threat of the partisan minority's voice in governing getting totally silenced — if the ability to filibuster legislation gets suddenly neutralized in the Senate next year, the way judicial filibusters were made obsolete seven years ago.

That would be terrible for a country so closely split between the major parties as we have been for more than two decades.

Such an arrangement, if backed up by a newly packed Supreme Court, would allow the political majority to weaken other safeguards, such as control of redistricting and the admission of new states, that would further solidify its own control over the government. Citizens objecting to unconstitutional actions by the executive would be without recourse, because appeals to the Supreme Court would be futile.

Court-packing would be a massive gain for the concentration of presidential power and allow a dangerous amount of control by one party. It threatens to replace our two-party government, operating under a system of checks and balances, with an increasingly authoritarian executive backed up by a dominant majority with no meaningful opposition to act as a brake on his power.

Even the most partisan Democrats should be concerned about eliminating the independence of the judiciary. While they could bend the court into a willing participant in passing the most radical aspects of their legislative agenda, they do so at the risk of eliminating the essential safeguard to their own constitutional rights. History is replete with examples of power grabs that have gone bad — and there are very few examples of the rapid and excessive concentration of power that have turned out well.

Packing the court is a serious constitutional issue, demanding serious answers from the Democratic presidential challenger before it's too late. We cannot accept the notion that we need to wait for it to happen to see what it means.

Read More

A Community Response to Disabled Gun Violence Survivors

A Community Response to Disabled Gun Violence Survivors

“What did you see once you got shot?” That might not be one of the first things victims of gun violence are asked, but it was the first question Access Living asked in a survey used to address and assess the many difficulties survivors of gun violence faced.

The nation’s gun violence crisis continues to be a significant threat to people’s lives, as it has claimed over 10,000 lives in the United States every year for the past 10 years, according to Gun Violence Archive. Only three months into 2025, there have been over 100 shootings reported in Chicago, and this will probably continue to rise, as in the country in 2023, on average, 118 people died of gun violence a day. According to the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, for every person who dies due to gun violence, more than two survive, usually with significant lifelong physical injuries that they have to learn to live with, along with the mental trauma of the incident.

Keep ReadingShow less
Improving Infrastructure In Washington To Benefit Both People and Nature

The 50: Washington

Improving Infrastructure In Washington To Benefit Both People and Nature

The 50is a four-year multimedia project in which the Fulcrum visits different communities across all 50 states to learn what motivated them to vote in the 2024 presidential election and see how the Donald Trump administration is meeting those concerns and hopes.

Washington State has historically fluctuated between Republican and Democratic preferences. While it was considered a Republican-leaning swing state until the 1980s, the political landscape shifted significantly in the following decades. Since 1988, the Democratic Party has won every presidential election in Washington, consistently achieving victory by double-digit margins since 2008.

Keep ReadingShow less
House passes 1,100-page spending and tax bill, raising debt by up to $4 trillion

US Capitol

Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

House passes 1,100-page spending and tax bill, raising debt by up to $4 trillion

Early Thursday morning the House passed H.R. 1: One Big Beautiful Bill Act — yes, that’s it’s official title — a 1,100+ page bill with large cuts to both spending and taxes. We know the big picture but little about the details because it hasn’t been available for long enough for anyone to actually read it.

This is the “reconciliation” bill, the first signature legislation moved by Republicans in Congress and President Trump. This bill has special rules that make it immune to the Senate filibuster, so it can pass the Senate if a simple majority vote for it.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Language and Cultural Barriers in Healthcare Plague Seattle’s Latino Community

stethoscope on top of a clipboard

Getty Images

How Language and Cultural Barriers in Healthcare Plague Seattle’s Latino Community

A visit to the hospital can already be a stressful event for many. For those in the Seattle Latino community, language and cultural barriers present in the healthcare system can make the process even more daunting.

According to Leo Morales, a healthcare provider at UW Medicine’s LatinX Diabetes Clinic and co-director of the Latino Center for Health, communication difficulties are one of the most obvious barriers in healthcare for Latinos with limited English proficiency.

Keep ReadingShow less