This week, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., came out swinging as a plan that some leading Democrats have floated to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, and is calling for a constitutional amendment to ensure it doesn’t happen.
In recent days, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has floated the idea of a future president pushing to expand the Supreme Court beyond its current composition of nine justices. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, currently a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for expanding the Supreme Court to 15 justices. U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, who is also running for president, has said she is open to expanding the court.
Rubio pushed back in a piece published at Fox News on Wednesday.
“America’s institutions are far from perfect. But over the past two centuries, they have provided a framework for our nation to become the most dynamic, most vibrant, and most exceptional nation in all of human history,” Rubio wrote. “At this moment though, our institutions are suffering a crisis of confidence as families fragment and communities crumble. And most Americans view every branch of government with disdain.
“As we have seen, these problems do not necessarily fade from one election to the next. In fact, they may intensify. The path forward will require Americans, their political leaders, the news media and countless others to set aside the political tribalism that dominates today’s culture.”
Rubio added. “Americans need to view one another as friends, neighbors and coworkers – not Republicans or Democrats.
“How does a divided nation overcome corrosive tribalism? Ultimately, we need a restoration of family and community. In the meantime, we should do no further harm. To this end, I am proposing a constitutional amendment to prevent the next political and cultural flashpoint: the packing of the Supreme Court for partisan gains,” Rubio insisted. “‘I want – as all Americans want – an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution,’ President Franklin D. Roosevelt explained in a fireside chat 82 years ago. While his language was unifying, FDR’s proposal was a transparent attempt to expand the nation’s highest court so he could appoint additional justices who would not stand in the way of his ambitious political agenda.
“The modern incarnation of court-packers shares FDR’s goals, though they are less unifying in their language. Proponents of a Democratic-led court-packing scheme foresee an impending ‘crisis’ – one that they use to justify their highly partisan tactics,” Rubio added.
Kevin Derby can be reached at Kevin.Derby@floridadaily.com.
Herbert Lewis
March 23, 2019, 6:20 pm at 6:20 pm
I disagree with Rubio on the boarder…i’ve been there, if he had i don’t believe he would have voted in that manner. However, the Constitution was built the way it was so neither no party is able to get beyond the SUPREME COURT, regaurdless of how many partties thier may be…not deficult to understand…oversized gov’t is too much!