Understanding Marco Rubio's Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Senator Marco Rubio has proposed a constitutional amendment to fix the Supreme Court's size at nine justices. This suggestion is designed to align the number of justices with the current number of appellate courts in the United States. With the nation growing in population, the judiciary needs to evolve, and having just one justice per appellate circuit could better distribute the workload and ensure a more structured system for future expansion.

According to Rubio, the nation's population growth necessitates a balanced judicial structure. He argues that with 13 appellate courts, equating one justice to each circuit would foster a fair and more organized legal system. This model ensures that justices have a proportionate workload, which can lead to more efficient decision-making and reduce backlog in the court system.

Controversial Precedent and Unconstitutional Claims

The text of the proposed amendment states, "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices." However, this seemingly straightforward language has sparked considerable controversy, particularly in light of actions taken by other senators against Merrick Garland in 2016. Senate members such as Thom Tillis, Roger Wicker, and Ted Cruz were part of a blockade that prevented the confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court during Barack Obama's presidency.

Senator Cruz, in particular, made a statement that he would have no problem blocking a potential Hillary Clinton nominee for the entire four years of her administration, should she become president. Critics argue that this position would be unconstitutional under Rubio's proposed amendment. The use of the word "shall" in the amendment implies a legal requirement that there must always be nine justices. Therefore, by their own definition, Obama should have appointed Merrick Garland immediately, as long as he was confirmed.

Many see this amendment as nothing more than a publicity stunt by politicians aiming to appear clever and make Democrats appear to support an expansion of the court. Senator Tillis, Wicker, and Cruz, by opposing Garland's confirmation, went against the very principle Rubio's amendment seeks to establish. Hence, these actions would be unconstitutional under their own definition.

Criticism and Alternative Proposals

There are alternative proposals that seek to limit the Supreme Court's size to seven members. According to some advocates, the last two appointed justices should revert to the Court of Appeals of their home districts. This would provide a mechanism for the court to maintain its structure while still allowing for growth in the future.

Supporters argue that a smaller court would prevent any single political party from packing the court, thus ensuring that judicial decisions are not influenced by political expediency. However, this idea may face significant hurdles in a highly charged and partisan political climate. Proposals like these may not pass due to the complex nature of political negotiations and the divided nature of the U.S. political landscape.

Political Motivations and Legislative Strategy

Amendments like Rubio's serve as excellent political tools. By putting everyone on record regarding their stance on expanding the Supreme Court, supporters can paint a clear picture of their political leaning. Voting against the amendment would be seen as standing against the size of the court, while voting present would be seen as abstaining. Voting in favor, on the other hand, would be interpreted as supporting a measure that aligns with American values of judicial integrity.

The proposal is strategically designed to demonstrate party loyalty. Democratic senators up for re-election have been forced to take a firm stance on the matter. However, few have given a straight answer, leading to speculation and political pressure.

It is unlikely that the amendment will pass due to the complexity of the legislative process and the need for bipartisan support. However, the mere proposal can be used to paint a bullseye on those senators in the Democratic Party who vote no or present on the amendment. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to bring the amendment to the floor, it could further elevate the issue and put pressure on reluctant lawmakers.

In conclusion, Rubio's proposed constitutional amendment to fix the Supreme Court size at nine justices, while noble in its intention, faces significant challenges in the current political environment. The debate around this issue underscores the complexities and political motivations involved in legal reforms and legislative processes.