Unpacking The Court: Democrats Seek Expansion For The Wrong Reason And In The Wrong Way

Below is my column in the Los Angeles Times on the calls by various Democrats to “pack” the Supreme Court to break the conservative majority. Like the FDR scheme, it is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason and in the wrong way. As a longtime advocate of expansion (here and here and here and here), the column advocates an alternative approach — not to pack but to unpack the Court. While my approach has been criticized by justices who oppose any expansion, it would address some of the most dysfunctional aspects of the Court.

Here is the column:

For a couple decades, I have advocated for the expansion of the Supreme Court to 19 members. So you’d think I’d be delighted that Democrats, who have long opposed an expansion, suddenly seem eager to pursue it. The problem is, the Democrats are seeking change for the wrong reason and in the wrong way.

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg have all embraced the idea of a larger court. They decry the five conservative votes on the current court as a partisan lock on crucial decisions, but they fail to acknowledge that there are four liberal justices who show a similar pattern of bloc voting.

These newly minted court reformers all sound a bit like Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe, who sees the situation this way: “The time is overdue for a seriously considered plan of action by those of us who believe that McConnell Republicans, abetted by and abetting the Trump Movement, have prioritized the expansion of their own power over the safeguarding of American democracy and the protection of the most vulnerable among us.”

Democrats are seeking change for the wrong reason and in the wrong way.

That sounds like court-packing in the name of fighting court-packing. Former Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. was more honest about what’s afoot. He declared outright that if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020, they must add two justices, just enough to achieve a new liberal majority.

The Democrats are returning to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed scheme. At least Roosevelt pretended to base his plan on the age of the justices (he wanted to add a new justice for every sitting justice over 70). In 1937 Roosevelt was saddled with four conservative justices — known as the “Four Horsemen” — who opposed his New Deal. Three other justices, the “Three Musketeers,” were predictably liberal and voted together. However, the Four Horsemen and the somewhat less predictable Justice Owen Roberts carried the day most of the time. FDR got a bill introduced to allow him to appoint up to six additional justices. It died when Roberts voted to support a critical New Deal case and “Horseman” Willis Van Devanter retired: The “switch in time that saved nine.”

And yet nine is one of the worst numbers we could have come up with for a Supreme Court. The Constitution does not specify the size of the court. The first Supreme Court had six members, and, when it convened in 1790 at the Royal Exchange Building in New York, only two of those justices showed up. As of 1869, the court happened to have nine members because there were nine circuits, or federal court districts. And it has stayed that way ever since.

Our Supreme Court is the smallest of any major nation, and the result is that for periods of time we have a court of one, especially on hard cases — a single “swing vote” decides which way a 5-to-4 decision will tilt. It used to be that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the decider, then Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Now it may be Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Expanding the court my way would end that concentration of power. The court might split, but the deciding vote probably wouldn’t be the same justice again and again.

My proposal also avoids giving any president an advantage in nominating new justices. The increase in size would happen slowly: No president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. When the court was fully staffed at 19, natural turnover would start to regulate its makeup, with no one president likely to be able to push it in one direction or another, and yet with most presidents getting a chance to nominate newcomers to the court.

So why 19? Because that is roughly the size of our federal appellate courts, and such courts function well when sitting together, or en banc. I would add a rule that, each year, two of the high court justices would be dispatched to sit on lower courts, so they don’t lose touch with judging in the litigation brawl that precedes a case that rises to the Supreme Court. That would leave an active court of 17 justices. (If Congress did not want to circulate judges in the lower courts, it would expand the high court to 17 members, still big enough to spread the power and presidential prerogatives around.)

Democrats, with their call for court packing, do not have a lock on bad ideas for the high court. Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) announced on Twitter that he would attempt to cement the court’s nine-justice tradition through a constitutional amendment. That would take an arbitrary number arrived at without rational debate and cement it into our Constitution for perpetuity. We would still be left with an undersized court and long periods with a court of one.

A famous quote from a Vietnam War battlefield — “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” — applies to partisan schemes to change or set in stone the current size of the Supreme Court. Before we destroy the court to save it, we should decide on who or what is the real enemy of justice and democracy. The court is demonstrably too small, but it must be unpacked, not packed.

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.

105 thoughts on “Unpacking The Court: Democrats Seek Expansion For The Wrong Reason And In The Wrong Way”

  1. I’m not sure about what the right size of the Supreme Court should be, but there is one issue that is always a problem: Political ideology of the justices.

    There have been too many recent decisions that have been 5-4, which places too much power with the one in the middle. I don’t like the idea that there could be that many decisions left up to one person, either. And I attribute that to some judges who will not vote in favor of the plain language of the law.

    Last session, Anthony Kennedy made a stunning personal reversal on the case of interstate commerce, when he reversed his own majority opinion from 1992 to allow states to tax interstate transactions. Essentially, he got to make law in 1992, then in 2018 the chance to say the law he created was no longer valid. Apparently, that’s what passes for a moderate political viewpoint.

    The other problem I see with judges being chosen for ideology is that they don’t adhere to the ideology of the Constitution and the laws that are passed by the legislative bodies. In my opinion, the main question they should be answering is: Do the actions in this case support the direct language of the law? But we regularly see decisions made that do not even address that issue; they are made based upon what certain judges feel should be the law. And this flawed decision-making process leads to judicial appointments based upon whether someone will do their dirty work; in effect, getting something into law that the legislators won’t do themselves. I guess they call that “being an activist judge.”

  2. If only Hilary had won, then we wouldn’t have had to hear all this TDS crap.

  3. The law is overly complex with the input of just nine justices. Imagine the cacophony with 17 or 19 black-robed Ivy Leaguers telling us what to do without any appeal to our elected leaders. It is said that children in ancient Rome, could recite the Law of the 12 Tables from memory. Now we have some much overlapping law, it’s estimated 70% of Americans have unwittingly committed a jailable offense. It’s not because 70% of the population are criminals; its because there are over 300,000 federal regulations punishable by jail time and myriad state laws and regulations adding to that figure exponentially. We’ er over-lawed and it is used as a weapon against the ethically innocent or political rivals rather than to shield us from the acts of criminals. Under the Law of the 12 Tables, litigants could state their case in the forum to the magistrates before noon. After lunch, it only one litigant returned, he won. If they both returned trial was had and a decision had to be reached before sundown. (Table I; 6-9) That’s the definition of justice in a complex society that ruled the known world for 1000 years. For all our technology and know how I’m not sure we’ve improved on it.

    1. That’s the definition of justice in a complex society that ruled the known world for 1000 years. For all our technology and know how I’m not sure we’ve improved on it.

      It ruled the Mediterranean world. It held territory outside of the Italian peninsula for not quite 700 years. The Mediterranean was enclosed from about 42 AD to 418 AD.

      Not sure the 12 tables applied to anyone but Roman citizens.

      1. TIAx3:
        Only Roman citizens could invoke the protections of Roman civil law (ius civile). However, some protections were afforded foreigners under the ius gentium. Lus singulare was Roman law applicable to specific groups so designated in the law. As for Roman reach, it extended from Scotland to Syria and from the Danube to the Nile Valley. At it’s peak it controlled 60-100 million people. Maybe 1/4 of the world’s population and was the unchallenged alpha dog of its time. The Han Dynasty in China has similar numbers assuming the low end numbers but did not expand towards the Roman Empire as the Romans did to theirs.

    2. And then there was one.

      “…in 1178, Henry II ordered that five judges of his household should remain in Curia Regis, referring only difficult cases to himself.”

      Queen’s Bench

      The Court of Queen’s Bench grew out of the King’s Court, or Curia Regis, which, both in character and the essence of its jurisdiction, dates back to the reign of King Alfred. At first, it was not specifically a court of law, but was the centre of royal power and national administration in England, consisting of the King, together with his advisors, courtiers, and administrators. At an unknown point, another court, independent of the King’s personal presence, grew out of the Curia Regis, and consisted of a number of royal judges who would hear cases themselves. It was recorded in the chronicle of Abbot Benedict of Peterborough that, in 1178, Henry II ordered that five judges of his household should remain in Curia Regis, referring only difficult cases to himself.

      – Wiki

    3. I wish that the tax code, laws in general, regulations, and the permitting process were streamlined. The tax code is so complicated that you usually need to hire a CPA to prepare your taxes, but if the CPA gets it wrong, it’s the taxpayer whose liberty is in jeapordy. It’s like a house where everyone keeps nailing on an addition until the whole thing is structurally unsound.

  4. With 19 justices, it absolutely could still be a one judge court, if each of those justices were partisan. As long as SCOTUS does not leave personal politics at the door, then there will be judge packing. You can pack a court of 9, 19, or 99. If the current trend continues, SCOTUS could be like Congress, swinging blue or red.

    SCOTUS is one area that needs to try to be non partisan. It shouldn’t matter what each justice’s personal opinions or politics are. The law is the law. There is already a mechanism in place to amend the Constitution. It is not the Court’s purview to tie the Constitution into a knot in order to fit a political goal. Follow the Constitution or Amend it. Justices need to be fair and impartial, and stick to the Constitution. Then it won’t matter how they vote.

    I have remarked before about my worry that moderates have lost control of the Democrat Party. It is my opinion that many Democrats have been brainwashed by the constant propaganda from Hollywood, the politicized education system, the media, and their own politicians into believing that conservatives really are racist and generally evil people. People will go pretty far if they believe they are fighting the good fight.

    Meanwhile, many conservatives believe extreme Democrats behave in the very way they accuse conservatives of doing, only we have proof, not conjecture. Identity politics are by definition racist and bigoted. We see harassment, misandry, and bigotry against men, especially white men. Transgender turns on gays and lesbians. Abused women are no longer allowed spaces free of male genitalia. We are harassed and called vile names if we voice an opinion contrary to the far Left. If you believe that Welfare needs to be reformed to stop punishing nuclear families or to help people get off of it, then you are accused of not caring about the poor. Conservatives have a real fear of being physically or verbally assaulted if they wear political clothing. They get lower grades in school if they do not conform to the approved party line. We see every racist, misandristic, and misogynistic slurs thrown at conservatives. Blacks are punished if they don’t vote or speak Democrat. Asians are discriminated against based on race because, despite centuries of racism and even a short internment, they are too successful. Family members savage relatives if they are not Democrat. We saw the FBI fail to apply the law in order to protect a Democrat candidate, and allow her to smash her phones and laptops with hammers while under subpoena. We saw them ignore Hillary colluding with Russia and instead investigated the victim of her ploy. Sanctuary states and cities protect violent felon illegal aliens from deportation. They encourage and enable homelessness, many of whom are dangerously mentally ill. They raise taxes over and over to make it harder to get by. They took away affordable health care, including access to many cancer hospitals. When they didn’t win the Presidential election, they try to change the rules and abolish the Electoral College, which would effectively wipe out 48 states in having any input. It would turn them into nuclear waste dumps. Now they try to pack the Supreme Court and ensure a super majority, further weaponizing the government against conservatives. They don’t really need to win the White House if they control Congress, SCOTUS, the FBI, DOJ, EPA, NSA, DOE, and the public education system k-grad school. They infiltrate the agencies that run our nation. Worst of all, they now openly support Socialism, which requires the abolition of individual rights and an all powerful, abusive state that would criminalize owning a business. They are working hard for tyranny.

    We are literally seeing the fascism and tyranny that Democrats are afraid we will commit. That is what most Democrats fail to understand. We are both worried about much of the same things, but Democrats are oblivious that they are actually committing these acts. They really are tyrannizing the rest of the country, and intolerant of other opinions and ideas.

    Racism no longer requires a negative opinion of a race. All it requires is opposing a Democrat idea.

    1. The main problem with the Democratic Party is that in elite circles and among the rank-and-file, no one adheres to any procedural principles. What’s good is what gives Democrats what they want. What’s bad is what doesn’t, now matter that it’s done according to spec.

      If you have no procedural principles, there are no limits to political combat and no referees with general legitimacy. You can see where this is going.

      A secondary problem is that the whole programme of the nexus of interests around the Democratic Party is built on declaring a huge bloc of the population as preternaturally pathological and stripping them of any influence in society – even over their own households. We can see where that’s going too.

      A woman of my acquaintance, who was born in 1916 and died in 1988, offered this political principle. “I’m not going to kill you. But I’m not going to let you kill me.” From Virginia to Harlem to Rochester, her life had been lived navigating suboptimal circumstances and enjoying what life had to offer in the interstices. Public affairs wasn’t interesting to her. Democrats do not realize or do not care that their ministrations push the country closer and closer to the state of affairs where her enunciated principle constitutes the rule of engagement in real time.

      1. TIA3 – you make a good point. The Democrats are attacking the system to ensure they win. They lost an election, so they are trying to abolish the Electoral College. That would disenfranchise most of the country. A Republican President appointed justices, so they seek to expand the court so they can pack it. This is on top of voter intimidation with all of the attacks on people wearing MAGA clothing.

        I’m so disappointed that moderates have not spoken out against this. Politicians behave this way because they feel confident in voter support. If their votes were outraged, they would suddenly find their conscience.

        It is very concerning that the Left is pushing the country towards Socialism and ruin. We are not immune to destruction from within.

        1. It is very concerning that the Left is pushing the country towards Socialism and ruin. We are not immune to destruction from within.

          1. Rule by appellate judges and administrative agencies when elected officials resist leftoid social policy.

          2. Education at all levels animated by this:


          (Not to mention disciplinary policies which allow black incorrigilbes impunity, Howard Zinn as Historiographer of America, promotion of polymorphous perversity and the social relations surrounding it).

          3. Systematic vote fraud.

          4. Seizure of privately owned firearms.

          5. Emptying state prisons, replacing punishment with social work, and abandonment of policing slum jurisdictions.

          6. Open borders.

          7. Judicially-imposed constitutional right to welfare payments (for illegal aliens and others).

          8. Use of the military as a toy theatre for their ‘social experimentation’.

          9. Legal and extra legal to prevent the opposition from organizing, speaking, and fundraising.

          10. Use of public funds for venture capital in re ‘green’ industries.

          11. Jacking up marginal income tax rates to 70%.

          12. Escalating subsidies financed with public sector borrowing and printing money. (‘Medicaid for all’, ‘College for all’)

    2. Karen, you’re not the serious person I assumed you were, nor do you possess any facility for self reflection. You’re freaking nuts and beyond hope. Enjoy your imagined martyrdom.

        1. You insult people all the time, Allan. And you do it in most of your comments.

          Is Anon correct about Karen S?

          He most certainly is.

          1. Anonymous / Diane you deserve to be insulted and the reasons why have been mentioned over and over again. But Anon wished to know why I insulted him when he was Jan F. I showed him by copying our dialogue that I didn’t insult him. He insulted me. There was no appology for either the insult or the statement that I insulted him first.

            It seemed that he wanted to dialogue with sensible people holding back the insults. I held back insulting him but wanted to let him know how his words once again could lead to a war of insults. As far as you go, you should be insulted every hour of the day. You add nothing, you are worthless and a waste of time.

            1. You’re projecting again, Allan.

              It’s amusing, though, how much time you waste here, just blabbering away.

              1. Projecting, Diane? Look at yourself and look at who you are. That’s impossible. Get on your broom and pretend.

  5. Change ‘Democrats’ to ‘Socialists’ and you have all the reasons you need in one word

    They aren’t Democrats
    They aren’t Democratic
    There is NO Democracy it doesn’t exist and never existed

    Pack the Court? What are they going to call it then Comintern or Politburro with Comrade Comey running the Schutzstaffel?

    1. “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
      ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

  6. An interesting idea with merit but the problem is political.

    As proposed, the move to 17 active justices will be naturally opposed by a Republican president and Senate trying to establish and sustain the first reliable conservative majority in over 50 years. On the other hand, such a move by a Democrat President and Senate will still be viewed as “packing” with a decidedly partisan short-term effect and thus subject to reversal when Republicans regain control. Once Pandora’s Box has been opened, the Supreme Court will then be subject to expansion (or contraction) driven by partisan vagaries and aims (under the likely guise of “court balancing”) which will ultimately delegitimize the Court over time. In the end, the “best” construction with perhaps the most merit may have to give way to the most consistent construction that invites the least amount of partisan abuse and political manipulation.

    I disagree that the current system necessarily has to boil down to a one-vote swing justice court. In fact, there’s a probability that over the next 6 years the court may move to a decided 6-3 conservative majority depending on the outcomes of 2020. Naturally, Democrats will lament the unfairness of the system while Republicans will revel in the first reliably conservative court in recent memory. The pressure to change the rules of the game will ratchet up to a whole new level and hopefully, all the partisans involved will remember that “what goes around comes around”. A Supreme Court that expands or contracts accordion-like to partisan whims is simply not a healthy outcome for our judiciary.

    In the end, the roots of this issue comes down to the likelihood that the Supreme Court has grown too powerful and, in at least some cases, has acted as a de facto super legislature of nine unelected justices.

    With this foray into the realm of the political, is it any wonder that the judicial and political stakes have grown to such enormity?

  7. What good is any number of Supreme Court Justices under despots like Lincoln and Obama? Authority is provided, not to the executive branch, merely to Congress to declare a condition of “rebellion” which Lincoln illegally did when suspending Habeas Corpus. Similarly, Obama illegally imposed immigration law, as the eminently unconstitutional DACA, by executive order, knowing that the power to legislate immigration law is solely that of Congress. Lincoln and Obama must have been impeached and convicted for the crimes of high office of abuse and usurpation.

    Article 1, Section 1

    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    Article 1, Section 9

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    “Lincoln removed a great deal of power from the legislative branch with this proclamation. He was not empowered under the Constitution to make such a declaration. In fact, that right belonged to Congress alone. Roger Taney, Supreme Court Chief Justice, contended that Article I of the Constitution declares: “a state of rebellion is the only time when Congress could declare the writ removed.” He also believed: “This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive branch..”

    – Brian Pulito

    “Several days later, Taney issued his opinion. Only Congress, he said, could suspend the writ of habeas corpus. He observed that the limitation on suspension of the writ appeared in Article I of the Constitution, dealing with legislative powers, not in Article II, which established executive power. He explored the history of the writ of habeas corpus under English law, showing that the House of Commons had limited and then abolished the royal power to suspend the writ, leaving suspension in legislative hands. The Constitution, he said, embodied this English tradition. Article II, he asserted, gave the president very limited powers that were weakened further by the Bill of Rights. Finally, he cited eminent authority, noting that Chief Justice John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, and Joseph Story, a luminary as both judge and scholar, had all acknowledged that the power to suspend was a congressional power.

    Lincoln ignored Taney, and that was the end of the federal judiciary’s involvement with the suspension of habeas corpus. Neither the Supreme Court nor the lower federal courts dealt with the issue again. The action now passed to the president and Congress.”

    – JAMES A. DUEHOLM – Lincoln’s Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis

  8. It’s not a fact. It’s a lie you keep repeating. A seat on the Supreme Court requires Senate confirmation, which Garland didn’t get. The Senate was under no obligation to pay any heed to Obama at all.

    1. By the aptly named absurd’s reasoning, the senate has no duty to advise and consent to the President on his nominations to the SC. So, if that court became empty or had 8 vacancies because the Senate didn’t feel like it, or maybe the President didn’t, there would be no constitutional issue since this process is voluntary.

      What an idiot.

      1. There is no constitutional provision which sustains your position. Period. Harry Reid allowed judicial nominations to languish for years. People like you didn’t complain. Because you have no procedural principles at all. You just whine you didn’t get what you wanted. Suck it up.

        1. Both parties have played politics with appointments, with the situation getting worse especially over the last decade. Reid made judicial appointments not subject to filibusters – except for SC justices, who he apparently assumed would continue to be dealt with on a higher level – to break the GOP logjam. The GOP senate majority then refused it’s constitutional duties to advise and consent on a SC nomination in order to steal a seat and ended the filibuster even on SC seats. That is not refutable, though it is humorous that absurd – who like to lecture us in rambling DTs about the Democrats lack of respect for procedure takes the scorched earth position.

          Maybe he’ll take comfort – or have nightmares – that what goes around comes around and expecting those who have been ripped off to go on the honor code next time they have the majority is a highly unlikely result.

          Enjoy your brief fling, members of the dying minority.

          1. The GOP senate majority then refused it’s constitutional duties to advise and consent on a SC nomination in order to steal a seat and ended the filibuster even on SC seats.

            There was no duty outside your imagination. Up until 1933, Congress was not in session 40% of the time. A delay of that duration would have been perfectly unremarkable.

            That is not refutable,

            Your under the illusion that if you make false statements with sufficient vehemence, they are true statements. You really do not have that sort of clout.

            Maybe he’ll take comfort – or have nightmares – that what goes around comes around and expecting those who have been ripped off to go on the honor code next time they have the majority is a highly unlikely result.

            Not sure who the ‘he’ is. After the Bork nomination, the Thomas nomination, and the Kavanaugh nomination, not many Republicans on the Hill are going to be so confused as to believe a sense of honor prevails among Democrats.

            Enjoy your brief fling, members of the dying minority.

            The ‘hurry up and die’ discourse among Democrats is always appealing.

            1. This was not delay, it was intentional theft.

              To the contrary – and without addressing your partisan viewpoint on the nut case Bork or the idiot Thomas – most of both party members approached SC nomination hearings with the attitude that absent the extremists or incompetent, the President deserved a nominee in tune with his politics. This occured numerous times since your examples from the early nineties.

              Most importantly, they held hearings to advise and consent.

              The GOP majority senate stole the Gorsuch seat by ignoring their constitutional duties, which are not optional as absurd absurdly contends, and ya’ll are dreaming if you think your team will not pay for it eventually.

              1. You keep repeating yourself. Again, lies don’t turn into truths with repetition.

                  1. Lies don’t turn in to truths with repetition. That principle holds when someone watches Fox News and when someone does not watch Fox News. This isn’t that difficult.

      2. Anon:
        “So, if that court became empty or had 8 vacancies because the Senate didn’t feel like it, or maybe the President didn’t, there would be no constitutional issue since this process is voluntary.”
        It’ s a stupid hypothetical. POTUSs and Senators understand the power in a SCOTUS appointment and it would never get to a dysfunctional court. There’s a political price to pay when citizens can’t get their cases heard. What did happen in the Garland nomination is that the Senate excised its prerogatives and ignored a nominee. That happens when one branch doesn’t trust the other. It’s been that way since 1787.

        1. Like most of the logical consequences of absurd’s faulty reasoning, it is unlikely to happen, partly out of the power involved, but up until this time the seriousness and fairness with which the senate has dealt with SC nominations. Most agreed that absent nut case or highly unqualified nominees, the President deserved a nomination in keeping with his politics. Also unlikely to happen is the GOP getting away unharmed by it’s larceny. Payback will come, one way or another..

          1. Most agreed that absent nut case or highly unqualified nominees, the President deserved a nomination in keeping with his politics.

            Well, the Democratic Senate caucus decided in 1987 that they wanted some other rule (when it was convenient).

            For nearly a century (1913-2009), the Republicans offered only infrequent resistance to Democratic nominees. Most cast ballots against Louis Brandeis in 1914 and against Hugo Black in 1937. Brandeis had no history on the bench and Black had only a brief stint as a local JP. Both men were enmeshed in the political struggles of the day and that accounted for their nomination. There was a considerable constituency (not a majority) who objected to Sherman Minton in 1949, because hack. It wasn’t until Johnson’s twin nomination of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968 that there was successful resistance, and it required the co-operation of a critical mass of Democratic Senators. Fortas was a shady Johnson crony and felt compelled to resign from the court the following year to avoid an impeachment proceeding.

            Of the 19 Republican nominees to the Court since 1968, the Democratic Congress voted down 3, promoted a public hue and cry which induced the President to withdraw 1, and pulled out all the stops to defeat 2 others. The majority of the Democratic caucus voted against 3 other nominees and a large minority against 2 others.

            I’m guessing that the Senate Democratic Caucus never got that memo from you about how the President ‘deserved’ this or that.

        1. Well, he’s now drumming his fingers until you and I kick over. Which is not something other than nasty.

          1. Take it how you want, but the desperation of the GOP to hold unto it’s shrinking power by stealing SC seats, winning presidential elections with unpopular candidates, voter suppression, and gerrymandering won’t ultimately be successful and ya’ll are going to have face the music.

            Enjoy your brief fling, members of the dying minority.

            1. Enjoy your brief fling, members of the dying minority.

              You can’t help yourself.

            2. Anon:
              You’re the only person with the possible exception of Nero who, when confronted with a near universal conflagration of all you seem to admire, concludes that the reason for the flames is the self-immolation of opponents. In the off chance you haven’t noticed there is a cataclysmic, nationalist populist surge in the Western democracies wrought by mindless immigration of known enemies by the globalist elite who thought the common folk wouldn’t look up. They did and it started with Brexit and spread westward to Trump’s victory and then eastward to Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Austria and then detoured south to Italy. You will see it manifested in the EU elections and in Macron’s France soon. Even Germany seems to be slowly coming around to the stupidity of Merkle. Trump will win in 2020 precisely because the Left will not come to grips with its own rotten core and will double down again on its socialist agenda that polls show is not a winning strategy. The Left either veers back to the center or dies. Remember radical Dukakis led to centrist Clinton. I’m good either way but don’t mistakenly assume the fire isn’t coming for them.

            3. Let us analyze what Anon is saying:

              “stealing SC seats” Stealing is when on steals ballot and uses stolen ballots to win an election. As a Democrat you should know all about that.

              “winning presidential elections with unpopular candidates” It’s not the popularity of candidates that counts. It is the number of electoral votes or did you not read the Constitution.

              “voter suppression” Having voters provide the same identification they have to supply when getting on a plane, taking a book out of the library, charging $5 at Warmart to Anon is voter supression. That is nonsense, but there is free speech so we have to live with it though I hear Anon’s friends are looking to end free speech.

              “gerrymandering” Who wanted gerrymandering? Get rid of gerrymandering in certain districts and one will be called a racist. Democrats are such hypocrits.

    1. Ha! But let’s be frank. The last time a Democrat or Republican gun control elite said so much as hello to a poor person was when someone came in to clean out their wastebasket.

Comments are closed.