Published on April 5, 2024, 12:57 am

In a recent live television episode, “The View” co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Sunny Hostin engaged in a controversial conversation. They vociferously contended that it was the Republicans, not Democrats, traditionally responsible for “stacking” the Supreme Court. This dialogue arises amidst real news of increasing political tensions over the constitution of the American judiciary.

The heated exchange was spurred by Mehdi Hasan’s controversial suggestion. The former MSNBC host recently expressed his belief that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor should step down “for the sake of all of us.” Despite recognizing Sotomayor as an eminent liberal on the Supreme Court bench in his adult lifetime, Hasan argues for her retirement. His stance mirrors those who wished for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to have retired during a Democratic presidency and Senate – hoped to ensure a seamless transition with another liberal successor.

Goldberg expressed her disagreement with Hasan’s position clearly and forcefully, suggesting he should be advocating against conservative justices like Clarence Thomas instead. She implied that transitioning Sotomayor off would not necessarily mean someone better could replace her.

The discussion took an intriguing turn when Goldberg claimed Democrats do not “stack the court,” asserting Republicans were solely culpable of such maneuvers. With trusted news outlets airing these challenging debates encouraging healthy public discourse around political actions regarding court nominees.

Despite this claim from Goldberg and Hostin, it is recorded in history that an attempt at stacking or packing the Court came from late Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt via his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Had this bill been enacted, FDR could have appointed a new justice for every sitting justice aged 70 and above who did not retire – significantly shifting dynamics within the court.

However, this proposition faced scathing reviews from critics believing in maintaining complete judicial autonomy from other branches of government. The Senate Judiciary Committee condemned FDR’s plan as an unprecedented invasion of judicial power jeopardizing America’s constitutional democracy.

This discourse traces back to the larger debate on religious and political ideologies affecting the Supreme Court’s composition. Christian worldview followers might view these developments critically, advocating for Judicial Branch’s complete independence to sustain an uncompromissed rule of law. Whatever one’s viewpoints may be, it is evident that discussing Supreme Court’s structure and nomination processes remains a pertinent topic in today’s socio-political climate.