How Many Justices can Squeeze onto a Bench?

At first retrospective glance, the Senate GOP seems to have established a new norm over the past year: no sitting President can seat a Supreme Court Justice without controlling the Senate. Any notion of the GOP's refusal to consider Garland as being based on vacancy occurring in the final year of a President's term is hogwash. The President got his appointees confirmed when he had a Democratic Senate; when he didn't, he didn't even get a hearing.

The establishment of this norm, while emblematic of our political dysfunction, does not represent a true threat to the independence of the judiciary. It just seems to assure periods of gridlock, of 4-4 decisions, of understaffed courts.

But I don't think the "no Senate control, no hearings" norm is the one being applied. I think the GOP is applying a much older one: might makes right, or the acceptability of doing anything that they can get away with. If this is the norm being applied, the Senate GOP may very well end the fillibuster and pack the Supreme Court with enough justices to dilute the power of the ones that are seated.

I don't think that the principle of an independent judiciary is what might prevent this from happening. The only thing that gives principles any power is the expectation of consequences - inflicted by others or one's conscience - if they are broken. Events over the last year have me sadly suspecting that the whole notion of principled action is becoming outdated as I've watched the extent of the unacceptable wane exponentially.

The only thing I see preventing this from happening is if the GOP can forsee itself out of power in the near future. If they were to pack the court now, the Democrats could just pack in more later. The Supreme Court might have to convene in RFK Stadium. I think that the GOP might have considered the "no Senate control, no hearings" norm and decided they could live with it if they had to bear the brunt of it. I just hope that those in control of that faction are still expecting to be out of power - at least in the Senate and the White House - at some point.

Dear Foreign Leaders,

Please understand that, having elected a buffoon who never does his homework, actions that upset delicate diplomatic balances established over the last 50 years should just be understood as the behavior of a drunk and incurious mascot rather than the steward of our foreign policy. Just because he doesn't understand our pretty much bipartisan-for-50-years foreign policy (whether or not either party wants to admit it) doesn't mean he gets to erase it by virtue of his ignorance upon taking office. Well, unless everyone in D.C. is so frightened for their job security that they let him.