OR Senator Introduces Controversial Supreme Court Bill

An Oregon Senator has introduced a bill that he claims would restore balance between the three branches of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial.

  Senator Ron Wyden introduces controversial bill

Wyden’s bill, the Judicial Modernization and Transparency Act, would expand the number of justices from 9 to 15, and also bring other changes to the nation’s highest court.

According to KOIN TV:

“Among the major changes, the bill would expand the court from nine to 15 justices over the course of three presidential terms and would allow the president to appoint one nominee in the first and third years of each presidential term.

In addition to expanding the court, the bill would return the practice of assigning a justice to oversee each circuit, expand the number of circuits by splitting the Ninth Circuit and would creating a new Southwestern Circuit.”

Wyden claims recent rulings that he deems controversial are why the bill is needed. As far back as 2021, some Democratic legislators and leaders have sought to expand the court from 9 to 13 justices. They claim, most likely due to some recent rulings that have not gone in their political favor, that the court needs reform.

Some of them point to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling that made the practice a Federal right. However, the overturning did not ban abortion, it returned it to the states, allowing each state to decide if it wishes to allow it.

For many years, following the appointment of Judge Earl Warren to the court in 1953 by President Eisenhower, the court’s rulings tended to lean to the left a bit, and this trend continued to grow slightly for about another 50 years, then began to center back to the middle or slightly right.

Moreover, most of the courts recent decisions the last few years have more closely followed the law, as opposed to being viewed as partisan decisions.

Not all the decisions from the court have leaned right, for example, Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote in ‘favor’ of preserving Obamacare.

Critics, legal experts and others view Wyden’s bill as partisan.