Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced a bill aimed at expanding and reforming the United States Supreme Court, nearly doubling its current size, and it also purports to make the judicial process more transparent and to restore public trust in the highest court of the land.

The Democrat's proposed legislation would increase the number of justices from 9 to 15 and includes measures to enhance oversight of judicial appointments and decisions, as the Post Millennial reports.

Wyden’s initiative, introduced on Wednesday, addresses concerns that the Supreme Court has become overly politicized, a point emphasized by the senator himself. He cited past events, such as the introduction of three conservative justices -- Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett -- under former President Donald Trump, as examples of how he believes the court’s structure has shifted dramatically. Democrats argue that such appointments have skewed the court's rulings in ways that do not reflect the broader will of the public.

Democrats and Republicans Divided on Court Expansion

While Democrats view the bill as an attempt to “democratize” the judiciary, Republicans see it as an attempt to exert greater liberal control over the court. The debate highlights the deep partisan divide over the role and structure of the Supreme Court.

Wyden’s bill would expand the court incrementally, increasing its size from 9 justices to 15 over a 12-year period. Under the proposal, future presidents would be required to nominate a justice in the first and third years of their term. This gradual approach, according to Wyden, would help make the court more representative of the electorate and avoid rapid swings in its ideological makeup.

Key Provisions Target Supreme Court Operations

The bill also contains several provisions aimed at holding Supreme Court justices more accountable to the public. One such provision would subject justices to an annual audit by the Internal Revenue Service. This step, Wyden believes, would ensure greater financial transparency and prevent potential conflicts of interest within the judiciary.

Additionally, future nominees would need to submit three years’ worth of tax returns as part of their confirmation process. This would offer the Senate and the public greater insight into the personal financial standing of potential justices, according to supporters of the bill.

Other aspects of the legislation address the decision-making process within the Supreme Court itself. A two-thirds majority of justices would be required to force a fellow justice to recuse themselves from a case, ensuring that no single justice could influence key legal decisions without broad agreement from their peers.

McConnell's 2016 Decision Influences Wyden’s Bill

Wyden’s proposal is partly a response to Senate actions in 2016 when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court. That decision left a vacancy that was later filled by a Trump appointee, further shifting the court’s balance to the right. Wyden’s bill seeks to prevent such deadlock in the future.

To that end, the proposed law would require that any Supreme Court nominee automatically proceed to a Senate vote if the Senate Judiciary Committee does not act within 180 days. This provision aims to prevent future delays in the nomination process that could leave the court understaffed for extended periods.

Additional Judicial Reforms Proposed

In addition to expanding the Supreme Court, Wyden’s bill includes reforms that would impact lower courts as well. The number of federal judicial circuits would expand from 13 to 15, and 100 new district court judges, as well as 60 appellate judges, would be appointed. This expansion aims to alleviate the current backlog of cases and ensure that the judicial system operates more efficiently.

A new rule would also require that Supreme Court justices release all of their legal opinions, further promoting transparency in the decision-making process. Proponents of the bill argue that this would allow the public to scrutinize the reasoning behind judicial rulings more closely, fostering a more informed citizenry.

Supporters See Reform as a Necessary Step

Supporters of Wyden’s bill argue that the Supreme Court’s current size and structure are outdated and unrepresentative of the United States’ population. Wyden noted that countries like Canada, with significantly smaller populations, have a larger number of justices in their highest courts. "Canada is a fraction the size of the United States in terms of population and it has 15 justices," Wyden said.

By expanding the court and implementing reforms, Wyden hopes to restore balance between the three branches of government. He claims the court has increasingly issued broad rulings that overturn laws and disrupt long-standing legal precedents, an issue his bill seeks to address.

Critics Call Bill a Power Grab

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans and conservative critics have called the bill a blatant attempt by liberals to “pack” the court and tilt its ideological balance in their favor. They argue that such reforms would undermine the court’s independence and could lead to an erosion of public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to remain impartial.

However, Wyden has attempted to counter these claims, arguing that the current structure of the court, with its lifetime appointments and relatively small number of justices, makes it vulnerable to political influence. The senator sees his proposal as a way to safeguard the court’s integrity rather than undermine it.

Conclusion: Expanding the Court Amid Controversy

Sen. Ron Wyden’s proposal to expand and reform the Supreme Court has ignited a contentious debate in Washington. While Democrats frame the bill as a necessary step to “democratize” the court, Republicans view it as a politically motivated effort to control the judiciary.

The bill includes a range of provisions, from increasing the number of justices to requiring annual audits and financial disclosures, all aimed at increasing transparency and accountability.

Whether or not the legislation gains traction in Congress, it reflects ongoing concerns over the politicization of the Supreme Court and the broader judicial system.