Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics

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”

  2. Yes, it does.
    Tell me how many states’ voters passed measures authorizing gay marraige.
    I’ll wait for your answer.
    Given that the Supremes “knew better”, the voters’ input did not mean squat.
    What 5 people decided was all that mattered.

    1. That’s correct Tom. The SC alone is tasked with interpreting the Constitutionality of laws, including those of the states as they affect US citizens’ rights.

      You got a problem with that?

      1. . The SC alone is tasked with interpreting the Constitutionality of laws

        It isn’t. There is no constitutional provision which grants them that status. It’s just no one challenges them.

  3. A true court packing plan would be for each judge to pack a pistol in his waist when he or she leaves home for Washington DC.

    2. Heavens, these bullets without a gun were a dangerous threat to a federal department. I’m so glad that the department went into lockdown and he was carted away.

    3. These cases aren’t a once in a blue moon thing by the way. They’re going on all the time. I feel so much safer.

  4. Partisan Democrats never cease to be clueless and petulant. The appellate courts have made egregious decisions in the last 60 years imposing liberal social policy without any warrant to do so. Now partisan Democrat throwing a hissy fit because the courts don’t give them everything they want. (What they want, among other things, are campaign finance regulation which muzzle corporate bodies supporting the opposition while allowing corporate bodies supporting their side to operate and laws which allow massive confiscation of privately-owned firearms).

    Here’s a suggestion. Craft an ethic and institutional set up which reduces the consequence of appellate courts, leaving social policy to legislative bodies. This is, of course, an non-starter, because it raises the possibility that elected bodies will adopt non-liberal social policies, and that’s a no-no (especially to liberal vermin on the appellate courts and the law faculties).

    Actually restoring free and popular government is going to be a bloody exercise.

    1. “Actually restoring free and popular government is going to be a bloody exercise.”

      Cue Senator Cory “I am Sparta” Booker

    2. Tabby, where does it say the courts would allow a “massive confiscation of privately owned firearms”..?? What are you even referring to here???

      If you think liberals want ATF Agents gong house to house around the country confiscating guns, you have been following Alex Jones.

      1. It is the aspiration of partisan Democrats to remove constitutional protections which would prevent a massive confiscation of privately-owned firearms. The point is not that obscure.

      2. You obviously don’t live in California. You need a law degree to make sense of the annual anti-gun laws enacted in this state. They have made certain firearms (based on cosmetic features) illegal as well as certain magazines. There is a small list of “authorized” firearms with the desired goal of limiting gun ownership to its citizenry.

        1. The proper attributes for controlling and limiting guns are those which actually make them more lethal and unfit for possession by civilians. Primarily we should be talking about weapons – like the AR15 – designed to fire high velocity rounds. The damage from the velocity of a bullet compared to it’s weight, is exponentially more significant. Additionally, since high velocity rounds can therefore be smaller, there is less recoil, further increasing their lethality. Doctors who gun shot treat wounds uniformally note the extreme damage caused by these weapons, even to tissue they don’t touch, and the great difficulty they have in treating them and often in saving the victim. These weapons weren’t designed to kill humans for nothing. They are excellent for that purpose.

          We should ban weapons in this category except for police, military, and certain licensed and controlled private firms.

        2. Roguedo, I ‘do’ live in California. But guns aren’t something I shop for every day. In any event, wholesale gun confiscations are quite unlikely anywhere. No liberal I know is calling for that to happen. It’s no more practical that a wholesale round-up of ‘illegals’.

  5. “And yet nine is one of the worst numbers we could have come up with for a Supreme Court”

    Better to settle disputes locally with a duel

    1. Love to see Natacha, Diane, Fishdroppings and Calamity Jane /Peter Shill in a duel.

      Oh what fun

      🍿

  6. This proposal is a preposterous attempt to obfuscate and politicize American jurisprudence. It is a patent admission of corruption. To propose a horde of fickle justices is to suppose that all Americans cannot comprehend the clear and obvious meaning and intent of the English words of the Constitution; It requires no more than one competent, conscientious and objective justice, under threat of impeachment, to “…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” The People, through the power of the vote, impeachment and conviction, constitute the ultimate justice – the ultimate dominion.
    _________________________________________________________________

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  7. “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

    1. “…referring only difficult cases to himself.”

      – Henry II, 1178, Wiki

  8. I have a hard time taking any of your solutions seriously, and those of the Parties are totally unacceptable, because they all lack the force of the Constitutional Principles of republican Government! In fact your solution of expansion is only valid for the House of Representatives which is critically underrepresented and totally dysfunctional as a result. The only solution to fixing the Supreme Court is to totally Raze the Supreme Court, and once Congress and the Executive are fixed, reassemble the Supreme Court starting with a Chief Justice Knows the role of the Supreme Court as that of Problem resolution rising from disputes between the States and between a State(s) and the Union!

    Republican Government is Nonpartisan Government because it is critically dependent on Representation of all the people equally with rights of equal Suffrage in our Governing institutions! That, in and of itself, makes Party Governing incompatible with Republican Government. Before the Supreme Court can be reassembled, by a Nonpartisan body of selectors, a Senate which is equal by State not Proportional by Party, the entire Federal Government System needs to be Razed, presided over by a transition Governing body, a committee of the States, one representative per State, under those conditions the States will have the opportunity to reestablish their own Governments in a Nonpartisan fashion based upon the principles of Republican Government. Once the States have reestablished their own Governments, then as they are able to assemble Federal Delegations, the Federal Government will be reassembled and once they have seated 38 State Delegations, then the Federal Legislature, thus again operating under a quorum, can then proceed to select a President and Vice President to preside over the Executive and Legislative functions, then begin to reassemble the Supreme Court, starting with 3, a Cheif Justice and 2 associate Justices, each with an Equal Vote.

    As a Constitutional law professor you know that the Constitution is in two parts, the Articles which define the formation of the More Perfect Union and the Federal Government System, and the Amendments which deal more with The Rights of The People (The Collective People not the Individual person) with respect to the Federal Government. The Articles of the Constitution define the principles of Republican Government and they, like Mathematical Principles, are not up for interpretation or alteration! Article 4 Section 4 Expressly Guarantees each State in the United States a Republican form of Government, making the States Themselves the members of Congress Entitled to the Principles of Representation and Suffrage defined, unalterably, by the Constitution!

    State sovereignty and independence is a key factor in forming a functional Confederated (compound) Republic! Meaning Congress must always be an Assembly of the States, by their Proportion of the Population in the House, and as Equals in the Senate, with corresponding Modes of Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus, forming the Protections, the Power of the Purse, Legislative Checks and Balances, and Continuity and Stability of Government.

    This is what is wrong with our Government today, we have allowed our Government to be consolidated into one Simple Republic, forming a National Government controlled by our largest Domestic Factions, our Political Parties! The only solution to this problem is the reformation of the Union itself, the States in Congress Assembled! “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”, Federalist #’s 9 & 10 by Hamilton and Madison Respectively! The States, in Congress Assembled is the Union, and our National Parties are our Domestic Factions. The only chance of saving our Governing System is for the States to be States and reestablish the Union of the States to Govern Together as Equals!

  9. Absent a principled resignation in order to right the stolen seat Gorsuch occupies, the Democrats have every ethical, legal, and moral right to add 2 seats and restore the already should be liberal majority on the court. This will not break the court, since it’s already been broken by the GOP senators in their completely partisan undermining of our constitution. JT’s fair minded reforms can follow the righting of this wrong.

    1. No matter how many members there are, there will still be two possible outcomes: one party will win and one party will lose. The votes on contentious issues ( those in the public consciousness (abortion, guns, affirmative action, immigration) would still break along ideological lines. If in doubt, look at the 535-member Congress. Professor Turley says his system would avoid the same single judge deciding outcomes, but how would rotating deciding judges improve on what we have now? Today, Justice X is the decider and tomorrow, it is Justice Y and the result? A vote resembling the politics of the appointing presidents.

      1. Well that didn’t happen with Justice Kennedy — who was laughably called a “moderate” because he took the law where it led him rather than coming to a conclusion and working backwards. He looks to be the only Justice who did his job properly for the past 30 years. The other 8 were just hacks.

        1. he took the law where it led him rather than coming to a conclusion and working backwards.

          Justice Kennedy was in the majority for Obergefell and Romer v. Evans. The notion he was on the square intellectually is pretty funny.

          1. Absurd,
            I remember Justice Kennedy (seemingly) questioning whether the Court was to the one to redefine the definition of marriage.
            I’m paraphrasing, but his comment early on in deliberations was “people may ask, who are we to change millennia of the established definition of marriage?”
            Justice Kennedy overcame that doubt, and decided “Why we’re the Supremes….of course we can change it”.
            (That is my take on Kennedy’s “thought” process, and not a quote).
            Now, “people may ask” why
            we now have two new SC Justices who are not as likely to redefine normalcy and upend bedrock societal institutions.
            The two recent appointees to the SC are, in part, a reaction against the judiciary dictatorship that Kennedy became a part of.

            1. The two new justices were appointed by a guy representing a minority of voters and of them is in a stolen seat which should have been filled by a duly elected liberal President. If they represent a reaction to what Tom imagines, it does not represent a reaction by most voters as he seems to imply.

                1. Gorsuch sits in a SC seat stolen from the previous president who would not have appointed him.
                  That’s a fact.

                  2. Again with the word “stolen”. Please get yourself a dictionary.

                2. Absurd,
                  I think it’s just as clear as the the stolened 2016 election that the SC seat was also stolened.
                  In both cases, the left did not get what they wanted, and they knew that every right-thinking American agreedwith them that they were somehow cheated😥.
                  That’s their only possible explanation of why things don’t always break their way.

              2. Anon, you have an odd understanding of what the word “stolen” actually means. You shouldcheck a dictionary.

    2. Absent a principled resignation in order to right the stolen seat Gorsuch occupies,

      You’re pretty pathetic.

    3. Pure garbage, something not to be confused with due process or the laws of the United States.

  11. To expand or not to expand is a tough one, based on case load alone, they should expand. The real problem that should be addressed is recusal. If at all, any one of them has a financial interest before the court, that they directly benefited from, they by law should recuse. Scalia and Thomas blew that trust out of the water with hearing cases about the Heritage Foundation that they also made paid speeches for, they heard the cases anyway. Liberal or conservative judges should not under any circumstance hear a case, that they themselves benefit from, period…. Also, if a federal judge can be impeached for lying, so can a Supreme Court judge, even after the appointment.

  12. Graduates from Harvard and Yale tend to think that their itShay don’t stink. This overwhelms their ability to see the will of the people and the heart of the Constitution. Take the 2nd Amendment for example. These Yale folks do not think that bears have the right to be armed. The right to arm bears is essential for our security. Armed bears helped the colonial militia to shoot the Redcoats.

    1. “In a letter to his nephew, Lund Washington, plantation manager of Mount Vernon, General George Washington writes on this day in 1776 of his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the American militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief root of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.

      In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”…”

      https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-blames-militia-for-problems

      1. George Washington and Trump had a lot in common. They both won. Washington wouldn’t have won without the militia no matter how poorly they were trained before the revolution.

  13. TURLEY’S IDEA SOUNDS GOOD

    As the professor points out, too often the court has revolved around one swing vote. But with 19 Justices that issue is most unlikely.

    Turley makes no mention of term limits for Supreme Court Justices but that idea has been widely discussed as well. Advocates recommend terms of 18 years for Justices which is the equivalent of three Senate terms. That sounds about just right to me. Justices shouldn’t remain on the court until they require life-support machines.

    1. “As the professor points out, too often the court has revolved around one swing vote. But with 19 Justices that issue is most unlikely.”

      I would think that the ratio would most likely extrapolate out and you would have decisions coming down to 1 or 2 swing justices. Instead of 5-4, you’re going to have 11-8 or 10-9 outcomes.

      I think what’s more dispiriting is that you’re having all of these 5-4 decisions at all. That indicates to me that at present the Supreme Court is a miniature version of Congress.

  14. I don’t see much regard for the Constitution in Congress. When Mitch McConnell and company kept a Supreme Court seat vacant for the better part of a year, they violated any reasonable interpretation of the advice and consent clause — particularly a Conservative one.

    1. Steve, I agree. I think Obama should have said, “We’re just going to hold hearings any way. And if you don’t like it, complain to the court”.

      That would have forced a much-needed test case regarding the constitutional authority of the Senate Majority Leader. Because I don’t think any constitutional power specifically says the Majority Leader can refuse to consider an appointment.

      The fact that Obama didn’t bother to push for such a test case disappointed me. It rather validated that old observation that Obama sometimes ‘led from behind’.

      1. Peter,
        Where would Obama have held the hearings? I don’t see how he could force a GOP controlled Senate to hold hearings; the President does not control the Senate’s agenda.
        I suppose Obama could “go ahead ” and hold “hearings” at the White House with his Cabinet conducting them, but outside of producing howls of laughter, I don’t see what that would accomplish.
        BTW, the two comments involving the JFK/ LBJ tax cuts and the timeline of the 2001 recession were mine.

        1. Tom, Democrats could have held those hearings in a hotel banquet room if necessary. They could have conducted them just like normal confirmation hearings. The idea would have been to let Merrick Garland speak for himself as a nominee to the court.

          I don’t know what ‘laughs’ you think those hearings would have elicited. To the contrary I think Republicans would have gone ballistic! What’s more, the media would have surely been there to give Merrick Garland a much-needed chance to be seen by the public. And the public might well have liked him.

          In fact, I think the main reason McConnell was determined ‘not’ to hold those hearings is that he feared the public would like Garland and ask, “Why not confirm him to the court?”. It was that very scenario that McConnell wanted to head off. Had Garland been featured in a confirmation setting, McConnell’s spite would have been seen as spite by the entire public.

          At the end of those hearings, Democrats could have voted to confirm Garland. Republicans would have furiously objected, of course. But Obama could have said, “You guys had a chance to take part in the hearings but chose not to”. With that Obama could have sent Garland’s ‘confirmation’ to the court; setting up a case in which McConnell’s authority would have been tested.

          At the time McConnell denied Garland’s hearing, I was interested to read that nothing in the Constitution specifically granted the Senate Majority Leader the right to deny confirmation hearings. So I think the test case would have been worth having.

          1. Well, if Democrats held the “hearings” in a banquet room, I don’t think that would be “just like normal”.
            Maybe if they used a banquet hall in Hollywood, it would pass for “normal” locally.
            But nationally, I think it would look pretty stupid.

          2. In fact, I think the main reason McConnell was determined ‘not’ to hold those hearings is that he feared the public would like Garland and ask,

            Peter, 7/8th of the public couldn’t pick a highly controversial nominee out of a police line-up. News junkies are oddballs.

    2. They were perfectly in compliance. Partisan Democrats are too juvenile to accept that they lose some battles now and again.

  15. The left has one desire and that is power. There is no concern for American tradition or the American people.

    I think Turley’s idea has merit and I wish there would be an educated discussion on increasing the size of the court based on need rather than politics.

    1. Better to shut down the Federal Govt, especially SCOTUS, and let all local affairs be settled by the locals. Imagine that

  16. The Demosocialist consistently do the wrong things in the wrong way, just look at the past two years.

  17. Maybe the professors idea to expand the court was rational before the liberals started utilizing the courts as a way to usurp the people’s will. The last few years have shown us how power hungry the left is and how dangerous it will be if they get in power, especially with the numbers needed to amend the Constitution. Dems/liberals are a violent, “ends justifies the means”, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” party … everyone should be concerned about who they are and what they will do. There is never any benefit to anyone with their proposals except to themselves and their power hungry leaders.

    1. “Dems/liberals are a violent, “ends justifies the means”, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” party“

      Yup. The paid trolls on these forums show us day after day

  18. It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that Republican. Funny how there’s no such thing as a swing vote (i.e., justice) provided by a Democrat (one appointed by a Democratic president). This only evolved since Roe v. Wade. And curiously, JFK’s appointee Byron “Whizzer” White was one of only two lonely dissenters (the other was Wm. Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee) in that case; no swing he.

    1. n.i.silver,
      In recent history, the Democrats have been better than the Republicans at picking and confirming Justices aligned with their political beliefs and goals.
      So to get Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomeyer, or a Kagan on the bench; I think most if not all of the left-wing justices have had Republican Senators, not just Democratic Senators, voting for their confirmation.
      The Republican appointees have included Justices like O’Conner, Souter, and Kennedy; those moderates weren’t much of a counter-attacks balance to the idealogues like Ginsberg, etc. They often sided with the left wing of the Court.
      It remains to be seen how often CJ Roberts will cross over and vote with the 4 left-wing Justices.
      He may ultimately turn out to be another Kennedy or Souter or O’Conner.
      But overall, and with the recent appointments by Trump, Republicans are now far less inclined to appoint a “moderate” in the absence of moderation on the part of the Democratic appointees.

      1. Republicans are bucking the culture of the legal profession, especially the law schools. Also, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush the Elder had to contend with a Democratic Senate for 12 of their nominees. Three nominees went down in flames and a fourth had to be withdrawn. Three Republican nominees in the last 30-odd years have been subject to gruesome campaigns of defamation.

        Nixon and Ford were both remarkably negligent in their judicial selections. Only one nominee out of seven proved satisfactory. You can read John Dean’s account of the process at work in the Nixon Administration in 1971 to see why.

        There have been about four occasions when a Democratic nominee faced a Republican Senate – in 1888 (2x), 1895, and 2016. One was confirmed with a 2/1 margin, one with a 5/1 margin, one by acclimation, and one nominee ignored.

        (This history is what makes ‘Anon’ complaints about Gorsuch so stupid and childish).

  19. Appoint only God fearing Justices as predicated in the Founding Fathers thinking.

    “I believe in one God, Creator of the universe…. That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children…. As to Jesus … I have … some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.”

    – Benjamin Franklin (Alice J. Hall, “Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin,” National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94.)

    “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” – Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

    Every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” – George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)

    “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.” – Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

    “When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)

    I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

    “Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)

    “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” – James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

    “Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” – John Adams

    “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” – James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 – signed by President John Adams.)

    “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.” – Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)

    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” – Patrick Henry

    “That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.” – Patrick Henry (Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776.)

    http://sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm

  20. We need diversity on the Court. Right now they are all from Harvard or Yale. We need an odd number of Justices so that a tie can be broken. We need a dog on the Court so that the circle can be unbroken. Or broken.

Comments are closed.