A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the number of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States should remain at 9.

III 117TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. RES. 164 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the number of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States should remain at 9. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES APRIL 19, 2021 Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate that the number of jus- tices of the Supreme Court of the United States should remain at 9. Whereas the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Judicial System of the United States’’, ap- proved April 10, 1869 (commonly known as the ‘‘Judici- ary Act of 1869’’) (16 Stat. 44; chapter 22), states that ‘‘the Supreme Court of the United States shall hereafter consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices’’; Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has con- sisted of a Chief Justice and 8 associate Justices for 152 years; Whereas previous attempts to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court of the United States have been re- VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:15 Apr 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR164.IS SR164 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS 2 •SRES 164 IS jected and widely condemned by individuals of both polit- ical parties; Whereas, in 1937, when former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, a bill that sought to expand the number of jus- tices on the Supreme Court of the United States from 9 justices to 15 Justices, he was harshly criticized by both parties and his own Vice President, John Nance Garner; Whereas, the 1937 Senate Judiciary Committee report, in re- sponse to the Court-packing plan by President Roosevelt, decried the plan as ‘‘a needless, futile, and utterly dan- gerous abandonment of constitutional principle’’, that ‘‘[i]ts ultimate operation would be to make this govern- ment one of men rather than one of law’’ and that it was ‘‘a measure, which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America’’; Whereas, during the Trump Administration, Democrats have refused to recognize the legitimacy of nominations made by President Trump to the Supreme Court of the United States and have advocated for packing the Court with ad- ditional justices appointed by a future Democrat presi- dent; Whereas, in 1983 during a Senate Judiciary Committee hear- ing, then-Senator Joe Biden noted that Court packing was a ‘‘bonehead idea’’ and ‘‘a terrible, terrible mistake’’ that ‘‘put in question for an entire decade the independ- ence of the most significant body—including the Con- gress, in my view—the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America’’; VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:15 Apr 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR164.IS SR164 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS 3 •SRES 164 IS Whereas, in 2005 during a speech on the Senate floor, then- Senator Joe Biden praised members of the Democrat Party for their ‘‘act of courage’’ in opposing the Court- packing plan of President Roosevelt, which he described as a ‘‘power grab’’; Whereas, in 2019, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, ‘‘I think it was a bad idea when President Frank- lin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court’’, and that ‘‘if any- thing would make the Court look partisan, it would be that’’; Whereas, in 2021, Justice Stephen Breyer urged supporters of court packing to ‘‘think long and hard’’ about under- mining the independence of the court, noting that it is imperative the public ‘‘trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics’’ and that ‘‘structural alter- ation motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust’’; Whereas the Constitution of the United States is based on the principle of separation of powers to provide for checks and balances on each branch of the Federal Gov- ernment and expanding the Supreme Court of the United States purely for political advantage threatens the sepa- ration of powers and the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution of the United States; Whereas the Federal judiciary is insulated from political in- fluence through lifetime appointments and other meas- ures to preserve its independence and an attempt to ex- pand the Supreme Court of the United States purely for political purposes threatens the independence and integ- rity of the Supreme Court and, thus, the entirety of the judiciary it oversees; and VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:15 Apr 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR164.IS SR164 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS 4 •SRES 164 IS Whereas any attempt to increase the number of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States or ‘‘pack the Court’’ would undermine the democratic institutions and destroy the credibility of the highest court in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate opposes any attempt to in- 1 crease the number of justices of the Supreme Court of 2 the United States or otherwise pack the Court. 3 Æ VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:15 Apr 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\SR164.IS SR164 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS