COURT PACKING CONCERNS ME FOR MANY REASONS, ONE IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS CONGRESS MAY NOT CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE SUPREME COURT, NO LIMITATION ON THAT. WE HAVE COME FOR 152 YEARS, STUCK WITH THE NUMBER NINE. IT HAS WORKED, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ARGUMENT SAYING THE BEST NUMBER OF TWO IS TOO LOW, THE COURT IS TOO SMALL. FROM A WORKFORCE STANDPOINT WE NEED TO EXPAND IT. IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHY IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO CHANGE IT, PARTICULARLY IF YOU INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE COURT IN ONE FELL SWOOP AND YOU DO THAT FOR PARTISAN POLITICAL PURPOSES, ALLOWING ONE PRESIDENT, THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, TO HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON THE COURT, IT COULD CHANGE ITS RULINGS. IT IS MORE POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS. IT CAN TURN THE COURT INTO A POLITICAL FOOTBALL OF SORTS. GIVEN THE FACT THAT OUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SERVE FOR LIFE, ONCE YOU DO THAT, IT BECOMES SOMETHING OF A ONE-WAY RATCHET, ALWAYS EXPANDING, NEVER CONTRACTING. YOU WOULD SEE AN INCREASINGLY LARGER COURT, WITH THE COURT EXPANDING EACH TIME A DIFFERENT PARTY SECURES THE COVETED CIRCUMSTANCE OF A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, MAJORITY IN THE SENATE, AND CONTROLLED BY THE SAME PARTY OF THE WHITE HOUSE. SO THIS IS WHY IT CONCERNS ME. I UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS THAT THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO COMMENT ON MATTERS THAT MIGHT COME BEFORE YOU, THIS IS ONE THAT COULD NOT COME BEFORE YOU AS A JUSTICE. IT IS NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION. IT IS COMMITTED TO THE TWO POLITICAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NOT EVEN A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE FOR IT, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD UNDERMINE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION AS I SEE IT, IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO IT WOULD NEVER COME BEFORE YOU. LAST NIGHT WHEN YOU ARE ASKED A QUESTION BY MY COLLEAGUE SENATOR KENNEDY ON THIS, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU HAVE AN OPINION. DID I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS. I HAVE -- I AM A HUMAN BEING, AND I HAVE AN OPINION ON A LOT OF THINGS. THE REASON WHY, IN MY VIEW, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO COMMENT WAS BECAUSE OF MY FIDELITY TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A POLITICAL QUESTION, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHY I THINK THAT I AM UNCOMFORTABLE SPEAKING TO IT. ...