DEAR EDITOR:

State court judges are not subject to the same political pressures and movements such as court packing, because most are elected by sensible voters.

The federal judiciary are political appointees and, with limited exception, nominated by the sitting president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, following Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Article III confers, “during good behavior,” protection from removal of office. A very few have been so removed. A notable federal district court judge was impeached, convicted and removed, but successfully ran and won as a U.S. congressman for many years. As Samuel Johnson once remarked, “Patriotism (politics) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” It is usually much more difficult to remove a federal judge than a member of Congress.

Presidential threats to “pack” the U.S. Supreme Court are not new, but in 1937, President Roosevelt, and now, President Biden, have done so. Roosevelt had legislative support to push his huge governmental expansionist proposals, Biden less of it, but both as Democrats feared what the Supreme Court would do: find that dubiously constitutional laws, when and if enacted, would not survive constitutional muster. So, to get what you want, you try to “stack the deck” with justices that are likely to rule in your favor. To add judges for partisan political purposes would undermine the separate and independent judiciary that mostly rule without political pressures or bias.

Roosevelt was unsuccessful in his threat because a sufficient number of Supreme Court justices did an about face and ruled in favor of legislation promoted by Roosevelt and his congress.

Biden is apparently of the same belief as Roosevelt in that the current court make-up he fears is going to strike down his questionably constitutional agenda, and he may try to pack the court by nominating up to four more justices. Hopefully, the sitting ones are not intimidated by this packing threat, and rule as they are sworn to do: uphold the mandates of the Constitution.

I would not want to be in the uncomfortable position as a judge when the commander-in-chief blatantly tried his hand at intimidation, or even as a member of a jury in a criminal case where a crowd was amassed outside the courthouse ready for action if I voted to exonerate the defendant on trial. Some idealistic unrealistic commentators reflectively applaud the judicial system when they agree with the outcome, but not all cases are decided objectively, and political or media pressure occasionally skews the results.

Judicial intimidation by threatening to pack the court is no different from crowd intimidation of a jury. Both are wrong.

CARL RAFOTH

Boardman