Court-packing, which means adding more judges to achieve a desired political outcome, is generally frowned upon by those who care about maintaining a democratic society. Nations like Venezuela, Cuba, Poland, Hungary, and El Salvador exemplify the dangers of such actions, where regimes manipulate courts by appointing loyalists.
Recently, Utah jumped into this controversial practice. On January 31, Governor Spencer Cox signed Senate Bill 134, increasing the number of justices on the state’s Supreme Court from five to seven.
Many are outraged, particularly because this move was spearheaded by the Republican Party, a group that has long condemned court-packing as a perilous act against democracy.
One prominent commentator expressed frustration, suggesting that every nation that has taken this route eventually became totalitarian, merely changing judges to fit their agenda. He accused Utah Republicans of hypocrisy in pursuing this judicial shift.
The commentator pointed out a significant issue in Utah: judges often take on legislative roles instead of sticking to their job of interpreting laws. This stems largely from Utah adopting the Missouri plan, which involves creating a list of potential judicial candidates that the governor chooses from.
He implored, could we please refrain from running a country dictated by so-called experts? He believes there are prominent delays and overload in the lower courts, and Utahans have been calling for reforms for years without success. While some may view the increase in justices as a remedy, he sees it more as a power grab.
His stance is clear: adding more justices isn’t about improving efficiency but rather about gaining control. He acknowledged that while there are poor judges legislating from the bench, Utah shouldn’t resort to such drastic changes.
He criticized Republicans in the state for becoming “soft” and “mushy,” implying they felt ashamed of their constitutional beliefs. Having made numerous missteps and compromises, they seem desperate to manage the damage by packing the Supreme Court.
In his view, Republicans in Utah shouldn’t expect immunity, noting that Democrats will likely follow suit. He warned that this practice could undermine the republic, suggesting that Congress expanding the court after losing a case only signals that constitutional limits are flexible when inconvenient.
The root issue, he believes, stems from universities in America that foster disdain for the Constitution, educating future judges, journalists, lawyers, and bureaucrats under a framework that equates Marxism with morality.
He urged Utah Republicans to understand that in a state with a rich constitutional history, such ignorance is inexcusable.
He posed a rhetorical question: why do we avoid conflict, as if confronting our principles is disrespectful? It isn’t disrespectful, he argues. We’re called to stand firm—if we don’t, we risk losing everything.
For a deeper dive into his thoughts, viewers can check out the video linked above.
