I believe that the Constitution's framers intended to have a flexible Supreme Court on account that historical evidence indicates that the size of the Supreme Court has changed multiple times. Its size was altered six times before establishing it as a nine-member Court in 1869. Besides, the Constitution itself doesn't specify the required maximum number, which leaves it open to changes. It is instructive to understand that court-packing attempts have occurred before, more notably during Franklin Roosevelt's administration in 1937 (Garner & Wallace, 2019). Roosevelt's decision was influenced by the Court's ruling that his New Deal policies were unconstitutional, and his attempts to expand the Court were unsuccessful. 

As you noted, the Supreme Court's size has changed over time, and expanding the Supreme Court has been the subject of debate.  As I said to your peers, this is the case because there is a clear constitutional provision that gives Congress the power to regulate the size and power of the courts.  Therefore, the real debate is not over whether Congress has the power but whether the exercise of that power is a prudent decision which is at its core a political decision.  In your opinion, what are some of the other ways to make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't divert too far from the views of the majority on certain legal issues?  Could Congress strip the Supreme Court from hearing certain cases or even strip the Supreme Court of the power of judicial review?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Youve presented a wellreasoned argument about the flexibility of the Supreme Courts size and the historical context surrounding it Indeed the size of ... View the full answer