What is court-packing? Trump says he is the only thing standing between 'packing the court and preserving it'

The debate over court-packing has been ongoing even as Texas' lawsuit over electoral voter ballot fraud gains momentum


                            What is court-packing? Trump says he is the only thing standing between 'packing the court and preserving it'
Donald Trump (Getty Images)

What is court-packing? A debate over the definition of this term went viral when an online user figured out that Dictionary.com had changed the definition of the term sometime between November and December. Now, the definition many feel leans toward the left in support of the Democrats.

Court-packing is still considered by many as a sign of power abuse and at the moment, with a huge lawsuit by Texas asking for the override of election results underway, the Supreme Court is in the spotlight. 

Now, the reference to court-packing begins with The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 proposed by President Franklin D Roosevelt. This was alternatively addressed as a "court-packing plan". This was a method wherein additional justices were added to the Supreme Court with the intention of being able to acquire more rulings that are favorable.

Roosevelt had suggested this in light of his New Deal legislation being struck down by the judges before for being unconstitutional. He had hoped that by including anywhere between 1 to 6 additional associate judges to the Chief Justice, he might be able to overturn the ruling and gather support. However, this had failed. 

Initially, the definition for court-packing read, "An unsuccessful attempt by President Franklin D Roosevelt in 1937 to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, which had invalidated a number of his New Deal laws."

Now, however, Dictionary.com's definition of the term is the "practice of changing the number or composition of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies, and typically involving an increase in the number of seats on the court." There is also a side note which reads, "Court-packing can tip the balance of the Supreme Court toward the right or left."

So what does this have to do with President Donald Trump and election fraud? Trump tweeted on Friday, December 11, "If the two Senators from Georgia should lose, which would be a horrible thing for our Country, I am the only thing that stands between 'Packing the Court' (last number heard, 25), and preserving it. I will not, under any circumstances, Pack the Court!"

He then added, "If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!" A few hours ago, he had tweeted, "Now it turns out that the Democrats want the Pack the Court with 26 Justices. This would be terrible and must be stopped. Even Justice RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) was strongly opposed!" 

 



 

 

 



 

 

 



 

With claims that Trump would stop the SCOTUS from turning one-sided, his tweets received much traction. One user on Twitter quipped, "You've already lost the election. multiple times. you're not going to be standing between anything and anything, except maybe Melania and the Mar-a-Lago omelet bar. now get out of way, she wants the mushroom with the scallion."

Another fan claimed that Trump was only fear-mongering and said, "Someone really needs to explain to this man that he is not campaigning anymore. His attempts to scare his supporters failed. Heck, the stock market did the OPPOSITE of what he said it would do if Biden won. Why would anyone believe his fear-mongering now? He's just crying wolf."

To this, another follower responded, "Have you seen his supporters? They know nothing about what you just said. Some of them have no clue that he will be gone on Jan 20. Seriously. They live in an alternate reality."



 

 



 

Trump's claim follows the letter that Congress had received from 25 progressive groups. According to a report in Fox, progressive groups are calling on Congress to expand the number of federal district and appeals court judges to help balance the workload in another burdened justice branch of the country. Senate Judiciary Committee’s two leaders – Republican chairman Sen Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and ranking Democrat Sen Dianne Feinstein of California had received the letter in which the groups highlighted the need for additional judges and wrote, “workload crisis and increase diversity on the federal courts.”

If you have an entertainment scoop or a story for us, please reach out to us on (323) 421-7515