Mark Caleb Smith, Ph.D.

Should the Supreme Court remain at nine justices, or would a larger bench strengthen the nation’s highest court? That question is drawing renewed attention after a Republican-backed constitutional amendment to permanently limit the court to nine seats failed in the House in September. Democratic proposals include expanding the court to 13 justices, while supporters and opponents disagree over whether changing its size would improve its credibility or deepen political divisions. Although nine justices may seem like a constitutional requirement, Congress determines the court’s size. Its membership changed several times before settling at nine in 1869. Legislation introduced by Rep. Al Green would increase that number to 13, reopening a debate over how much influence elected officials should have over the structure of the judiciary. Supporters see expansion as a way to restore balance and bring additional perspectives to the bench. Critics worry that adding seats to secure favorable rulings could encourage future majorities to pursue similar changes. The broader issue is how to preserve public confidence in an institution designed to exercise independent judgment. The Constitution’s protections for federal judges, including service during good behavior and protection against salary reductions, are intended to shield them from partisan pressure. Changing the court’s membership would create new opportunities for presidential appointments, with consequences that could extend well beyond a single administration. As the debate continues, Americans face a consequential question: What reforms would strengthen accountability while preserving the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret the law independently?

When will Congress stop kicking the budget proverbial can down the road with a continuing resolution and begin addressing the issue of leading with a balanced budget? Having a balanced budget, and spending within our means should be expected of our legislators--but for decades, this has not been the case. Lawmakers from both political parties are guitly of not addressing the issue that has created several 11th-hour deals regarding the budget. While this strategy helps keep some legislators in power, it's providing no benefit to the American people. Congress has now opted to not work on this issue until December--if it even does it then. However, the deadline buys our political leaders time to get past the midterm elections, campaign for each other, and hope the American public doesn't notice. And, in doing so, we'll experience another government shutdown in December.

In All the King’s Men, Robert Penn Warren describes Willie Stark’s final victory. “And there wasn’t any Democratic party. There was just Willie, with his hair in his eyes and his shirt sticking to his stomach with sweat. And he had a meat ax in his hand and was screaming for blood.” Warren’s description is darkly poetic and metaphorical. Stark, the populist governor of a fictional state, did not murder his rivals, but he did destroy them, along with the political party he rode to power. Like Stark, Donald Trump has carved up the Republican Party of old, and in its place, there is just Trump. This is not the first time a politician has remade a political party, but the death of the G.O.P. threatens to unbalance our political system. We are defined by close elections, tight legislative majorities, and polarized preferences. Neither side in the cultural conflict can achieve core objectives, so the temptation to put more hope and power into the Executive, to skew the system, is mounting. We can argue about the degree to which past Republicans were truly restrained, especially in government spending, but at least the G.O.P. used to advocate for two seatbelts to keep the body politic safe from accidents: character to govern the self and constitutionalism to limit what government can do to others. As the G.O.P. grew to rival Democratic power, in the 1980s and 1990s, the New Deal coalition fractured, along with the assumption that simply more power, expertly applied, could solve our problems. Democrat Bill Clinton conceded “the era of big government is over.” Justice Elena Kagan recognized, “we’re all textualists now.” The tug of war between an evolving progressivism and a robust conservatism may not have made for an ideal way to solve problems, but it did encourage humility, born of the recognition that radical actions, even if successful, would be punished. Dr. Mark Caleb Smith serves as Professor of Political Science and the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. He teaches courses in American Politics, Constitutional Law, and Research Methodology/Data Analysis. His primary research interest is in the field of religion and American politics. View his profile Those days are over. Donald Trump’s Republicans are no longer a restraint of any kind. The seatbelts of the past have been snipped by the same leaders who claimed to buckle them in place. The Epstein Files are the exception of congressional pushback that proves the rule of the party’s degradation. But what of the appointment of unqualified and incompetent leaders in the F.B.I., H.H.S., Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense? Illegal and extra-judicial killings in the Caribbean? An unexplained and unauthorized military buildup in the same region? Shakedowns of universities and media outlets? Crypto corruption? Tariffs? Strong-arming law firms and firing career civil servants for seeking justice in our courts? The Republican response has mostly been crickets. There is no longer a major party that pretends to restrain the president through the law out of principle. The real disagreement between Trump Republicans and Biden Democrats is not about should the president abuse his power, but how. Unless something dramatic happens, the politics of the meat ax will come for us all. Mark is available to speak with the media regarding the state of politics in America. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview.