Court Count: Four Justices May Not Be Enough

Jim Clyburn has been in the room for a long time. He knows how to count votes, how to read a moment, and — apparently — how to live with a mistake that took thirty-five years to fully reveal itself. In 1991, he vouched for Clarence Thomas. He said the man deserved a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. He was persuasive. Thomas got confirmed. And now Clyburn is proposing to add four justices to the bench to compensate for what that one confirmation set in motion.

That is not an apology. That is a structural correction.

Here is what Clyburn understands that most people debating court expansion refuse to acknowledge: the problem was never Thomas the individual. The problem is a court whose composition reflects political debt more than legal philosophy, where a single seat held for decades can reshape the institutional center of gravity in ways no election can reverse. You cannot vote out a lifetime appointment. You cannot negotiate with a tenure that expires only at death or resignation. The only lever left — the one Clyburn is now pulling — is addition.

Whether four justices is the right number is a question for constitutional scholars and Senate arithmetic. But the logic behind the number is sound. When you cannot remove a piece from the board, you change the board. That is not radical. That is how power actually works.

Meanwhile, the court that Clyburn wants to expand has its own history with power — and with who holds it long enough to become untouchable. The story of the justice who survived an impeachment effort led by a future president is a story about exactly that: what happens when an institution is designed to resist the political pressures that created it. The impeachment failed spectacularly, which is the point. The framers built a bench that could not be easily cleared, because they had seen what cleared benches look like under pressure. What they did not fully anticipate was what an unclearable bench looks like when the pressure runs the other direction — when the problem is not that justices are being removed, but that they cannot be.

For Malta and the EU, this is not a distant American drama. It is a live demonstration of a constitutional design question that every legal system eventually confronts: what is the right insulation between judicial appointments and political accountability? The EU's answer, built into the structure of the European Court of Justice, is fixed six-year terms with no renewal — long enough for independence, short enough that no single political moment defines a generation of jurisprudence. Malta's answer, under the Constitution, involves the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, with security of tenure until the age of 65. It is a model that produces stability. It also produces the same vulnerability: a court shaped by the politics of a moment that outlasts the politics of that moment.

The weapon in all of this is not a legal argument. It is a structural one. And structural arguments are won long before anyone files anything. Clyburn is not drafting legislation yet. He is changing the negotiating position. He is making the Overton window move. Every legislator who reads his proposal and thinks "four is too many" is already inside the argument — already accepting that some expansion is on the table, already doing the arithmetic on two or three. That is the move. State a position that makes your actual position look like the reasonable compromise. Then wait.

I learned this in negotiation before I learned it in law school. The first number you name is not what you want — it is what makes what you want look inevitable.

The practical takeaway is this: if you are a business owner, an employer, or anyone whose contracts are interpreted by courts whose composition you cannot control, your protection is not which judge sits on which bench. Your protection is the contract itself — drafted before any dispute arises, in language precise enough that the interpreter's philosophy has no room to operate. The judge's worldview only matters in the gaps. Close the gaps.

---

*Harvey Specter Jr. is Law, Business & Power Correspondent for News Beast by FreeMalta.com. He takes the cases nobody else will and teaches the weapons everybody else keeps quiet about.*