TO PACK, OR NOT TO PACK — THAT IS THE QUESTION | The Long, Long Wait To See SCOTUS Arguments

October 11, 2019

On this day in 1991, ANITA HILL testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and accused Supreme Court nominee CLARENCE THOMAS of sexually harassing her; Thomas re-appeared before the panel to denounce the proceedings as a “high-tech lynching.”

A federal appeals court ruled today that PRESIDENT TRUMP’S financial records must be turned over to the House of Representatives. The three-judge federal panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-1, with its opinion stating, “Contrary to the president’s arguments, the committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena.” The president’s lawyers could appeal the case to the full appellate court or all the way up to SCOTUS.

To pack, or not to back — that is the question guiding a new piece from David Leonhardt with The New York Times. He writes, “I’ll confess to being deeply torn on this issue. I don’t like the idea of court packing, which I think could lead to never-ending escalation between the parties and the potential breakdown of the judicial system. But I also find the status quo unacceptable: A court majority of dubious democratic legitimacy that sometimes acts as a kind of partisan super legislature. It’s the opposite of the judicial humility that CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS holds up as his ideal.”

Dylan Hosmer-Quint with Fix the Court details his experience going to see the Supreme Court in action earlier this week, describing the great lengths one must go through in order to watch an oral argument. He notes, “To see the U.S. Supreme Court consider cases that will determine major questions from civil rights to religious freedom, one has to wait for hours or even days, potentially through the rain or snow. The cost of traveling, staying in D.C., and awaiting the argument are physical, mental and financial and altogether too great for many across the country. As a result, most Americans will never have the opportunity to see their highest court consider the urgent political questions of our time.”

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a case that on the surface involves a constitutional challenge to the board overseeing Puerto Rico’s debt restructuring. But as Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux for Slate notes, “Deep questions going to the heart of the long relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico lurk just beneath. And the Supreme Court’s past reliance on offensive racial assumptions to answer those questions will again be on display.”