If one day, the president of the United States decided to absolve the Supreme Court it is safe to say most citizens would be concerned about the health of the democracy. Throughout the 21st century, the United States has seen a shift in ideals and practices and a drastic increase in polarization that any proponent of democracy would find concerning. 

As recently as the Trump presidency in 2016, instances of potential democratic erosion feel as common as ever. Democrats feel it is unfair that Trump nominated three Supreme Court justices during his presidency. This led to a topic of contention among Democrats throughout the Biden administration consisting of calls to pack the Supreme Court or at the very least restructure fundamental aspects of the court by introducing term limits. 

Any manipulation of The Supreme Court should raise red flags for defenders of democracy. Since The Supreme Court is supposed to be an unbiased institution, packing it should not do anything if it operates as intended. 

The duty of the president to appoint Supreme Court justices when there is a vacancy has been a consistent part of their jobs since George Washington. There shouldn’t be anything inherently unfair about one president nominating multiple justices as those on the court are supposed to act as unbiased actors looking to uphold the Constitution. 

In modern-day America, The Supreme Court has fallen victim to intense polarization. In the past few decades, citizens in the United States have pandered farther to the left or right depending on their previous leanings. This has been reflected in more extreme politicians on both sides attempting to appease their bases. 

We have seen a decline in unbiased court rulings in more political cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, where there are apparent splits among the justices along party lines. Matthew Levendusky points out that “In the 2022–2023 term, while there were more unanimous rulings, many of the Court’s highest profile decisions—on affirmative action, religious freedom, and Biden’s student loan plan—were decided along polarized partisan lines, underscoring the contemporary Court’s deep divisions.”  

This is very concerning from the perspective of a polarized country looking to avoid democratic erosion. There are two main concerns with citizens and elected officials calling for these actions. First, it just encourages the court to become more politicized and polarized which is dangerous for democracy in the long-term. Secondly, The Supreme Court is one of the three fundamental branches of our government with checks and balances.

If justices stop looking at the Constitution for what it is and start to interpret it in ways that reflect certain political leanings the Constitution becomes less and less meaningful. The party with more justices could have the justices make rulings that drastically alter how the Constitution is interpreted to support them. 

Low-level judges may attempt to build a resume of cases ruling to fit a certain agenda to gain the respect of whichever party they lean toward. In line with The Supreme Court, low-level justices will have cases a majority will rule similarly. On the other hand, the most politically motivated cases will start to be split along party lines at every level of our judicial system.

If the executive appoints justices to practically serve him or her, why would they check the executive’s power? The incentive to perform their job as intended is becoming smaller which undermines one of the fundamental protections of democracy. An autocracy is exactly what we are attempting to avoid, but an executive who has The Supreme Court working as a pawn is not too far from an autocrat. 

Nancy Bermeo from Princeton University discusses executive aggrandizement where the executive weakens checks on their power through institutional changes. Packing The Supreme Court or changing fundamental aspects of its structure and selection process would be a prime example of executive aggrandizement. 

The other side of this coin is to realize that Democrats are too short-term focused when calling for changes like this. One explanation for actions that restrict democracy is that it would only achieve something short-term to protect democracy long-term. 

Democrats calling for packing the court are failing to consider the precedent they may leave. If Biden were to enact changes like this before his term ends and Trump ends up winning the election in November, what is stopping him from doing the same thing to benefit him and the Republican party? 

Our country has a lot of precedents we value and once somebody breaks the norms we have by packing The Supreme Court, everybody that assumes the presidency will begin to do the same thing. This will only lead to more autocratic tendencies and actions as one party at some point will try to gain more when the right opportunity comes. There could be a major domino effect of large institutional changes like this. 

The most important aspect we have to analyze in our political system to explain why there are more and more groups considering radical decisions is the increase in polarization. Henry Farrell from The Washington Post argues that political polarization is one of the four key threats to any democracy, especially in the United States. 

As polarization has grown throughout the 21st century, the idea of an “us vs them” rhetoric has taken over our country. The idea of packing the courts embodies this idea. By suggesting packing the court, Democrats are acknowledging that there is an outside group that is currently trying to repress or harm them in some way that they need to take action to secure their wants. 

We see justices ruling along party lines in some of the most divisive and polarized cases they take. Instead of people across the aisle being able to reconcile their differences on policies in the name of pushing America forward and defending the Constitution, Americans cannot have civil conversations with those who don’t agree with them about everything. 

In conclusion, increased political polarization has led to more radical, democracy-threatening agendas from both major parties in the United States. Allies of the current president calling to pack the court or impose term limits are playing a dangerous game and should be questioned by their constituents who value democracy over their political agenda. 

Works Cited

Bermeo, Nancy. 2016. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy 27(1): pp. 5-19. 

Farrell, Henry. 2020. “History Tells Us There Are Four Key Threats to American Democracy,” Washington Post. August 14.

Levendusky, Matthew et al. “Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world.” Science advances vol. 10,10 (2024): eadk9590. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adk9590