To the editor: Add four seats to Supreme Court
to reinstate balance

Right now, the right to abortion care is at risk because of a deliberate, decades-long takeover of the Supreme Court by powerful right-wing extremists.

We’re seeing the culmination of this takeover as the court prepares to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that made abortion access a constitutional right. This opens the door for states to outlaw abortion and take us back to a time when women were forced to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, potentially endangering their health and hurting their ability to provide for their families.

But it’s possible to undo this damage. The Judiciary Act would add four seats, restoring balance to the Supreme Court. It’s the solution that recent polling showed is supported by the majority of Americans, and it’s what we need to move away from partisan rulings that dismantle our rights and freedoms. And it’s been done before. In fact, Congress has changed the size of the Supreme Court seven times already in our nation’s history. It’s time to do it again.

I’m urging Congress to pass the Judiciary Act of 2021 to ensure we protect our fundamental freedoms and restore balance to our courts now.


Patrick Ciriello

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: CommentaryLetters to the Editor

About the Author:

RSSComments (3)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Raymond Makul says:

    I agree with Kai Mikkel Forlie. Democrats were asleep at the switch by failing to codify rights found in Rowe v Wade. They had almost 50 years to do it. Past Congresses have codified civil rights decisions by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other legislation.
    But part of the problem is that the timing of the Presidencies has given Republicans more opportunities to nominate justices than Democrats have had. When you nominate polarizing, unattractive candidates for President, you lose. Democrats have to understand that a Supreme Court to their liking requires winning elections, and winning elections requires candidates with broad appeal, and non polarizing platforms that do not attract the mass opposition of one issue voters.

  2. Ken Bergmann says:

    So. If I don’t like the decision of the Supreme Court of this great country, I can just change the rules so that I can have what I what? No. It doesn’t quite work that way.

  3. Kai Mikkel Forlie says:

    No, it’s at risk because the Democratic Party, which habitually runs on protecting a woman’s right to choose, has – despite having had every opportunity to do so since Roe was ruled upon – failed to codify the ruling into law.

    Protestors are rallying outside the wrong people’s houses. The real targets should be the homes of those the electorate, at least theoretically, has some control over; namely representatives of the party that currently controls all houses of government (and, again, has been promising codification but never delivering it) like Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, etc.

    Current activists need to wake up to the bait and switch currently underway (they’re being distracted on purpose) and turn their attention to the frauds in charge of the other corporate pro-war party.