Chief Justice John Roberts could push GOP to replace Antonin Scalia, but probably won't

Even if President Obama nominates the sitting Republican governor of a swing state to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee probably still won't allow any nominee to get even a hearing, meaning Scalia's seat would sit vacant for at least a year. That will have real consequences for the country, because 4-4 decisions at the high court "essentially decide nothing," says Supreme Court expert Lyle Denniston at the National Constitution Center.

Scalia's absence will be felt nowhere more acutely than at the Supreme Court, and there is some precedent for Chief Justice John Roberts to step in to get Republicans to move on Obama's nominee, Denniston says, citing FDR's proposal to add up to six justices to the court in 1937, purportedly to help the Supreme Court tackle its heavy work load. Denniston explains:

Roberts would be loathe to take such a step, because he wants to present his court as apolitical and perhaps because he may "rather not have an Obama nominee taking the Scalia seat," Denniston said. "All such considerations, however, might begin to lose their force if the eight Justices did, indeed, find themselves stymied in major ways by the continuing effect of one empty seat. Propriety might then have to give way to necessity."

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

That's an interesting scenario to consider, but Roberts wouldn't act without consensus from the other seven justices, and at least one of them, Samuel Alito, said Tuesday that if the court has eight justices for an extended period, "we will deal with it." In fact, he added, "there's nothing in the Constitution that specifies the size of the Supreme Court.... There were times in the history of the court when the court had an even number of justices." Which is true, The New York Times says: In 1789, there were six justices — by design — and in 1863 there were 10. "They must have been more agreeable in those days," Alito said.