Destroying The Court To Save It: Democrats Wrongly Use Ginsburg To Push Court Packing Scheme

Below is my column in USA Today on the growing calls for packing the Supreme Court with up to six new members as soon as the Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress and the White House.  I was critical of Democratic nominee Joe Biden this week when he refused to answer a question of whether he supports this call by his running mate Kamala Harris and other Democratic leaders. Biden told reporters “It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going answer…it will shift the focus.” That was an extraordinary statement since if the question was legitimate, the refusal to answer it was not. Many of us would not support a presidential candidate who supported the packing of the Court. If Biden considers this a viable option, he is not a viable candidate for many of us. This is a central issue in the presidential campaign that has been pushed by Harris and top Democrats.  Yet, Biden is refusing to confirm his position. What is particularly concerning is that Biden precisely and correctly denounced court packing schemes like the one supported by this running mate.  Just a year ago, he insisted “No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day.”

Here is the column:

“Nothing is off the table next year.” Those seven words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer capture the “total war” declarations of the Democrats when asked about any nomination to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election.

There is a type of liberation that comes from what military theorist Carl von Clausewitz called “absoluter Krieg”: “War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means. … For political aims are the end and war is the means.” The means raised with Schumer is a demand for the Democrats to pack the nation’s highest court with added members once they take control of the Senate.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler also declared that “the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.” Rep. Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass., tweeted: “If (the Senate) holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple.”

Yes, it is as simple as it is senseless. It is a curious way to honor Justice Ginsburg by destroying the institution she loved. Packing the court is all about power, not principle.

Remember Franklin Roosevelt

As members and commentators have lined up to pack the court once Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, I have been called about a plan that I first proposed over two decades ago to expand the court. This, however, is not my plan. It would expand the court for the wrong reason and in the wrong way. In that sense, it is more similar to the court-packing plan of President Franklin Roosevelt.

In comparison with some other countries, our court is pint size. Indeed, it is demonstrably and dysfunctionally too small. Moreover, unlike the considerable thought put into all of our other major institutions, the size of the Supreme Court was arrived at by virtual accident. The Constitution does not set the size of the court.

The first Supreme Court had just six justices, and when it convened in 1790 at the Royal Exchange Building in New York, only four justices bothered to show up.

Over history, the size of the court has fluctuated. Justices once “rode circuit” and sat as judges in lower courts, so when Congress added a circuit, it would add a justice. When a 10th Circuit was added in 1863, a 10th justice was added. In 1869, however, Congress set the court at nine members.

That’s it. No deliberative debate. No historical or political analysis. More thought went into the size of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than the size of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Notably, most of the other countries with substantially larger courts have them to avoid the persistent problem of our nation’s highest court in becoming practically a court of one with a swing justice. My proposal was to increase the court to 17 or 19 members (the larger option allows for the possible return to the tradition of two justices sitting on lower courts each year by rotation). My review of similar size courts (including appellate courts sitting “en banc”) shows less stagnation around a single jurist as the swing vote and greater intellectual diversity.

However, there was a critical catch. The increase to 17 or 19 justices would occur slowly so no president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. The commitment would be for a full court over roughly two decades. That is the difference between reforming and packing a court.

This call began a few years ago. Commentators like Pema Levy declared that the Republicans were succeeding in shaping the court, and that it has led “some Democrats to believe that it’s time to throw out the rule book and fight back.” That “rule book” was previously called the Constitution.

Democrats just want muscle

Democrats want to simply engineer a majority in a raw muscle play after taking over the Senate and the White House. It is as raw and transparent as the FDR court-packing scheme. Faced with a conservative majority ruling against his New Deal legislation, Roosevelt called for up to six additional justices, one for every justice older than 70. That was basically the profile of the “four horsemen” blocking his measures.

Like the latest calls, the FDR plan was based on politics rather than principle. When the politics changed, the plan died. FDR dropped his plan as soon as he got what he wanted with a favorable majority. That is why the switch of Justice Owen Roberts in favor of a New Deal case became known as a “switch in time that saved nine.”

The expansion of the court should not be simply because Democrats do not like the fact that President Donald Trump got three nominations. This was always the risk for a number of aging justices. In 2017, I wrote that Ginsburg (who was the oldest member of the court and long battled cancer) was taking a huge gamble with her legacy by not allowing President Barack Obama to appoint her successor.

Before Ginsburg died, nine nominations had occurred in election years since 1900, and Ginsburg herself said in 2016 that the Senate had to do its “job” and vote on such nominations because “there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” Moreover, Ginsburg also opposed expanding the Court, but she is not being cited by liberals as the reason to doing precisely what she opposed as inimical to the functioning of the Court.

That does not mean that the Democrats are wrong in calling out the hypocrisy of Republicans who opposed any vote in 2016 (or conversely Republicans quoting Democrats who insisted that election year nominations are entirely appropriate in 2016). Senators can vote against the nominee on any ground, including the timing. However, nomination is still a constitutional prerogative being exercised for the 10th time in an election since 1900. It is no excuse to call for the packing of a court and destroying decades of tradition. It is the political equivalent of the Vietnam War goal of destroying a village to save it. This court will not be saved by packing it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

212 thoughts on “Destroying The Court To Save It: Democrats Wrongly Use Ginsburg To Push Court Packing Scheme”

  1. Beg to differ, Turley. Dems aren’t wanting to expand the court because Trump got 3 nominees, they want to expand the court because Mitch McConnell stole two of those nominations.

    And it’s laughable you draw this analogy because it amounts — exactly — to McConnell’s plan and what he admittedly views his role in the Senate as….”Democrats want to simply engineer a majority in a raw muscle play after taking over the Senate and the White House.”

    Not only for Mitch, this is the strategy of the republican party for many years now. Learning projection skills from trump now I see.

    1. “Mitch McConnell stole two of those nominations ….”
      *********************
      What a moronic statement. Sounds like a child. Probably is. Grow up, Fishy. You’re not a Guppie anymore.

    2. I would have preferred that Garland be Borked during lengthy hearing then defeated. But Mitch didn’t want to em-bare-ASS him.

      1. Why would anyone want to Bork a person they knew would not get the votes in the first place. It seems there are a lot of hateful people that adopt the Anonymous name.

  2. To quote from “Visual Explanations Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative” Edward R. Tufte.—— I present this only to illustrate how the left is painting a PRETTY PICTURE to assuage the gullible voter._____ “Enthusiasts, partisans, and liars have long tinkered with graphical evidence by dequantifying image, selecting and hyping advantageous visual effects, distorting data .Recently, inexpressive computing and ingenious techniques for image processing have provided endless new opportunities for mischief. Arbitrary, transient, one-sided, fractured, undocumented materials have become the great predicament of image making and processing. How are we to access the integrity of visual evidence? What ethical standards are to be observed in the production of such images? One way to enforce some standard of truth-telling is to insist that the innocent, unprocessed, natural image be shown along with the manipulated image, and, further, that the manipulators and their methods be identified. If images are to be credible, their source and history must be documented. And, if an image is to serve as serious evidence, a more rigorous accounting should reveal the overall pool of images from which the displayed image was selected. ———- Finally, despite the chronic dangers of misrepresentation, appropriate re-expressions or transforms of scale are among the most powerful strategies for exploring data.”——– If the lefts goal it that Justice is meted out equally then they first must admit that the previous administration was guilty of just the opposite in its pursuit President Trump and his continued administration. If the left thinks that Hydrocarbons are the cause of supposed Global Warning then they should present convincing evidence not just hyperbole. If the left believes the Courts are administered with a Right bent then they should show where this has happened, but, also look within their own confines especially the Ninth Circuit. With the lefts dictates that anything opposite their beliefs are to be cast aside then we as a nation are in for a very lengthy decline. And as Marcus Tullius Cicero once said: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.”

  3. Why should Biden answer questions solely to provide fodder to pro-Trumpsters like you, Turley, since Biden wouldn’t be the one to make this decision–Congress would. It would serve no purpose than ammunition to deflect attention from the ongoing failures of the orange monster who invaded our White House

    Turley also says: “Like the latest calls, the FDR plan was based on politics rather than principle. When the politics changed, the plan died. FDR dropped his plan as soon as he got what he wanted with a favorable majority.” Do you think that anything Trump does is based on anything other than politics–primarily how not to go through the humiliating experience of being kicked out of the White House? So he connives on how to hook Evangelicals with the abortion issue, by pledging to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. BTW: it is a violation of the cannons of judicial ethics for a judge to announce his/her ruling on any issue in advance of seeing the briefs, and if any of Trump’s “candidates” have been talking to him, she must recuse when the Trump campaign files any appeals to the SCOTUS, because Trump has announced that he expects his appointees to help him cheat his way into a second term.

    Trump lost the popular vote, and only “won” the Electoral College because Russia colluded with his campaign to help him cheat. Since occupying our White House, he has failed to garner even 50% of the popular vote. He is an outlier–his presence in the Oval Office and everything he does is contrary to the will of the American people. Since he knows nothing about judges or the judicial system, he chooses from a list provided by the Federalist Society because he thinks he can rook gullibles into believing that he’s saving unborn babies. Bottom line is: a third radical right-winger on the SCOTUS is wrong, regardless of whether the Republicans can pull it off. Someone who lost the popular vote, who cheated to win the Electoral College and who has never even obtained a 50% approval rating, should not be allowed to appoint 1/3 of the judges on the SCOTUS. The majority of Americans are not radical right-wingers. A SCOTUS appointment is for lifetime, and since Republicans are hell-bent on trying to force their will on the American people, why would or could it be wrong for the American people to fight back–take steps to get a SCOTUS that reflects the values and beliefs of most Americans? Turley decries destroying decades of American tradition. Is there any day that goes by that Trump doesn’t do this?

    1. “Turley decries destroying decades of American tradition. Is there any day that goes by that Trump doesn’t do this?”

      he is destroying the 20th century tradition of Republicans habitually agreeing to be losers. That’s a tradition wise to disown.

      He is also embracing various tools of state power that Republicans eschewed habitually. We might as well toss that bad habit in the furnace too.

      Soon other empty taboos will be broken, and you will be dealing with a different situation altogether.

      at the end of the day, politics is about people forming up into groups for mutual aid, survival, and prosperity. it is about who is inside the gates and who is out. who is a citizen and who is a barbarian. who is elect and who is not. and how will those inside be organized. it is about those groups and the rules which emerge in the process which are set down as laws.

      those rules are made and remade, those groups form and reform. it’s a fluid situation. we all have a tiny role to play. be smart Natch, reckon carefully what group you really want to win.

      there’s still time to change the road you’re on

      https://youtu.be/6hBLHkmBKDg

  4. KAMALA IS IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT

    JOE HAS DEMENTIA

    a vote for Joe is automatically a vote for Kamala to succeed him within his first term– keep that in mind

    1. Ha. Solidified my vote there, Kurtz. Bahahahahahaha. The former AG of California will be quite useful in navigating the steaming wreckage of the trump administration in the aftermath.

      1. if you say so now then my remark cemented nothing that was not already set in stone. so. the vote for you is easy. the vote for others may not be so clear

        1. You’re right. I’ve never seen it as even being a choice. I’d never vote for a corrupt, lying and backstabbing dickhead.

          1. Kamala is perhaps corrupt, but certainly a liar. She also called Joe lots of nasty names in the primary and now says he’s great. Feel free to brush up on her history about her.

            Kamala is a pure mercenary. If you think she has any firm policy commitments besides loyalty to her donor base, perhaps that is naïve

            of course you may be the sort of fellow who wants Silicon Valley to rule America from behind the scenes, and so desiring, you ratify their choice. how cleverly they ensured that in spite of her poor performance in the primary, she may yet emerge the winner.

            1. Better than overt control by the fossil fuel lobby and a casino family beholden to Putin.

              Also amused that you suppose I don’t know Kamala’s history. Your condescension slip is showing, Kurtz.

      2. The steaming wreckage is what communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have done to America.

        You are loyal only to your dear leaders in communist China.

        Obama and his gang should be in prison for conducting a coup d’etat and treason. The vote has been totally corrupted (now democrats pay felons to vote). “Crazy Abe” Lincoln started it all by nullifying the constitutional right to secede, killing one million Americans, suspending Habeas Corpus, etc. America is so far gone to foreign invaders and parasites, the Second American Revolution is long overdue. The manifest tenor of the Constitution must be reset and reimplemented; the entire unconstitutional American welfare state abrogated with extreme prejudice. You parasites have no concept of American freedom; only “free stuff” – oh, and baby murder. Start with Article 8, Section 1, Congress can’t tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. Congress can’t regulate anything but money, commerce and land and naval Forces. Congress can’t possess or tell any American what to do with his private property, while it may completely “take” they property after compensating the owner under eminent domain.

        Unconstitutional are affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., etc., etc.

    2. You Trumpsters keep believing that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe you. The “Joe has dementia” meme came from Russians who are trying to help Trump cheat a second time. Biden is 3 years older than Trump, far more intelligent, and has integrity that Trump doesn’t understand, much less try to emulate.

      And, even if what you said is true–which is isn’t–Kamala Harris is infinitely better-qualified to run this country than the former game-show entertainer whose incompetence has ruined our economy, and whose mishandling of the pandemic has cost tens of thousands of American lives. How amusing it is to sit here and see you Trumpsters scramble for arguments. Your little pal, Karen, posted some video that claims that voting for Biden is voting for a racist, while you, Kurtz, throw out the claim that Kamala Harris, a black woman, would really run things, the racist and misogynist implications of which aren’t even subtle.

      1. “How amusing it is to sit here and see you Trumpsters scramble for arguments. ”

        And justifications and rationalizations. Like watching an addict running through all their denials. It’s got to be hard work.

          1. Kurtz, I like the comment that talked about the agents buying malpractice insurance recognizing that what they did was wrong and they would be sued if the information was ever released.

  5. Biden will live to rue the day that he picked Harris as his running mate. Now he has to run.
    Don’t pack the Court! Oppose the Gang of Four! Speak softly and carry a big stick! Don’t change dicks in the middle of a screw! Vote for Biden if you are at the pew. Kneel and pray, vote Dem all the way. When it’s all over, get in your Rover. Move to Arizona.

  6. So Biden wins, court increased to lets say 13, Law written so he nominates 4, Court has 7-6 Democrat court. 20 years friend m now GOP nominating replacements and it g mes up 8-5 Republican. Be careful what you ask for!

  7. So maybe President Trump should nominate all the Women on his short list and match it with the same amount of men. Take the offence and see what the Democrats think about packing the Court!

  8. That means he is for it. But what do else do you expect from a socialist disguised as a democrat and one with allegiance to a foreign ideology?”

  9. What’s amusing about the Democrats’ rage is that you’d have to scrounge for a Supreme Court decision in the years since 1937 that was much of an impediment to the liberal agenda. The Bakke decision in 1978 debarred explicit racial quotas, but it hardly mattered. It was met with try-every-door noncompliance and racial discrimination in college admissions occurs on a massive scale. There was a 1974 appellate court decision which debarred federal judges from ordering cross-district busing of students for ‘racial integration’. There have been a series of decisions which put some brakes on gun control legislation. (Gun control legislation is an effort on the part of liberal politicians and publicists to stick the blame for inner-city crime onto social groups they despise; they’re not interested in crime control per se). There was Citizens United, which disrupted the efforts of liberals to enact campaign finance legislation which permitted corporations allied with the Democratic Party to speak their minds during election season but debarred ordinary corporations from so doing. That’s about it. Liberals don’t get everything they want from the courts, but they’re not harassed and abused by the courts. They’re still dissatisfied.

  10. Of course if the Republicans were in a position to pack the court the Democrats would be just fine with the idea, right? Right?

  11. JT is wrong in this. If it is ok to fill a seat less then two months before a presidential election because nothing in the constitution forbids it, then changing the size of the court is equally ok. SCOTUS is partisan, and if it takes this type of hard ball to break it and rebuild into something better then I am all in.

    1. Per the Constitution the Senate advised and rejected Garland. There is absolutely no Constitutional issue here. What you propose is to make the Supreme Court into an arm of the democrat party and go against the intention of an independent judiciary. The left created the mess by counting on the Supreme Court to pass legislation that they couldn’t pass in Congress. That was destructive and it doesn’t work.

      Look at Row v. Wade. a decision almost 50 years old. That was not a federal issue and the SC should not have taken the case up but it did. The results have been horrid even if the decision might be considered a fair compromise by the majority of Americans. To this date the abortion issue continues at the top of the list so that discussion of truly federal issues are displaced and mangled as the debate over abortion twists everything under discussion.

      The support for some sort of compromise existed among the American people so that state legislatures would have solved the problem or a Constitutional Amendment recognizing compromise might have been passed despite heated opposition from the extremes of both sides. We have seen such bad results from other decisions that activist court made when their decisions could have been more limited causing less problems over the decades. Democrats today keep pushing for complete control over government and now you are reaping your rewards with rioters burning, looting and killing in order to convince local officials to do their bidding and move far to the left. You are not going to like those results when they come banging at your doors or the doors of your children or grandchildren.

        1. They need not live up to your expectations to meet Constitutional requirements. The Senate makes its own rules. That is why during the Kavanaugh hearings democrats could get away with lying and their behavior.

          Look at the Constitution and take note that it is written on very few pages.

    2. MollyG – you think that expanding a court so you can stuff it with partisans is building something better?

      Maybe for Lenin.

      1. An election cheater, of whom most Americans have never approved, is trying to stuff the SCOTUS with extreme right-wing judges with a lifetime appointment, after Republicans denied Obama the nomination of Merrick Garland. Obama was elected twice, with large margins. Give me one good reason why the American people should sit still for a SCOTUS populated by a majority of judges whose views don’t reflect the views of the majority, and who have an agenda–mainly rolling back Obamacare, reversing Roe v. Wade, rolling back consumer and environmental protections the rights of persons arrested for crimes, and helping Trump cheat and avoid prosecution, none of which are supported by the majority in this country.

        1. Natacha – the Electoral College is in the Constitution. It’s not “cheating.”

          Oh, dear. It took 3 years for you to stop claiming he was a Russian plant, though you did persist long after it was revealed as a hoax paid for by Democrats. At what point will you accept the lawful results of 2016 election?

          “Give me one good reason why the American people should sit still for a SCOTUS…” Sure. The Constitution. That’s the reason. Do you wish to abolish the Constitution? Or only part of it? That’s the road to tyranny.

  12. “However, there was a critical catch. The increase to 17 or 19 justices would occur slowly so no president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. The commitment would be for a full court over roughly two decades. That is the difference between reforming and packing a court.”

    The only way to reform rather than commit a hostile takeover of the judicial system is to expand gradually, as Turley has said.

    “Commentators like Pema Levy declared that the Republicans were succeeding in shaping the court, and that it has led “some Democrats to believe that it’s time to throw out the rule book and fight back.” That “rule book” was previously called the Constitution.” This indicates that Democrats had succeeded in shaping the court for many years, and they don’t share power.

    If Supreme Court justices would just apply the law as it is written, rather than what they think the Founder would have really meant if he was a Liberal alive today, then the personal politics of a judge would be immaterial.

    Don’t like the law as it is written? Then there is a remedy. It’s called “legislating” from Congress. Pass a bill or amend the Constitution with the consent of the states.

    Ginsburg’s daughter said that she did not retire while under President Obama because she believed Hillary Clinton would win. It was her wish that the first female President, a Democrat, nominate her replacement. Does that mean we should honor her wish and ring up Hillary to ask her to nominate someone, because Ginsburg wished it? No. A wish, or hope, was not Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legal opinion. If you gave a legal opinion, you knew it.

  13. I had to turn my TV news off because of all the coverage of Ruth “Baby-killer” Ginsberg and setting her up to lie in state. Criminy but I can not wait until they finally plant that old shrew. What she stood for was killing babies. That is why the Left loves her. Because she was somebody quite content to help young women never grow up. Quite content to promote the “anything a man can do sex-wise, or drug-wise, so can women.” But we can’t. We wear out a lot quicker and multiple partners out the wazoo makes women undesirable marriage material, a fact that many of them are discovering in their early to mid-30s. It was the old school broads like RBG who had it good. They got married, settled down, and raised families. Something RBG did her best to screw up. Used to be, so I hear, when the girl got knocked up, she got married and settled down, and so did her “partner.” Not any more. Now, you just kill the baby and keep on partying.

    But not Ruth. No, she got married at age 20, and had a kid by age 21. She was still able to go to Harvard, but now some chick can just kill her baby because it might interfere with her college, or her career or whatever.

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg made it more difficult for later girls to grow up into womanhood. That is her real legacy. Perpetual adolescence for women.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. “…Perpetual adolescence for women.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter”

      Given her comments, the “girl reporter” would appear to know a lot about “perpetual adolescence.”

      1. You are right. I am a sexual freak (celibate) and I would probably be a happier person in the long run if I went ahead and got married and had a few kids. But I am happy now, and I hate dealing with idiots and like my last boyfriend said, “Squeeky, you just ain’t human.” I have come to believe he was right.

        I can be social and I am usually the life of the party, but I would be quite happy on a desert island as long as I had books and my guitars and pipe tobacco and my cats and my shoes and my weapons, and my hats. And Topo Chico and margaritas and Tennessee Honey. Oh, and nachos!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. It would be a “No Shills or Jehovah Witnesses Allowed!” type of desert island, sooo you do not need the GPS should I ever wind up there.

            One, is the happiest number I could ever be!
            Two, is far much worse than one,
            And being left alone is what I want to be!

            “Love”, is the stupidest experience that I ever did!
            “Love”, is the nearest I ever came to flipping my lid!
            ‘Cause Two is the stupidest number I could ever do!
            You can buy me drinks – I won’t go home with you!

            etc.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

  14. Turley’s complaints are hollow. Republicans are exploiting the fact that the constitution allows them to do what they want to do in regards to the court. If democrats win control of the senate and the White House they are perfectly within their right to change the number of justices in the court. If Turley is upset at the notion he can just pound sand.

    Turley has spent an inordinate amount of time ironically touting the fact that the republicans have every right to do what they want in the senate. He is in no position to do a 180 and suddenly complain about the prospect of democrats doing what republicans have no problem doing even when it’s unethical.

    It almost seems as if democrats are held to a much higher standard than republicans because democrats are the ‘ethical losers ones.

    1. “Republicans are exploiting the fact that the constitution allows them to do what they want to do in regards to the court. … because democrats are the ‘ethical losers one”

      What a foolish interpretation of events. The Republicans are following the Constitution with grace while the democrats are rioting, burning and looting trying to get their way.

    2. Svelaz:

      This is remarkably short sighted. Reid used the nuclear option for judicial appointments. He was warned he would rue the day. Republicans then applied his own rule to Supreme Court nominees.

      You do realize that both sides can do this, right?

      Since when are Democrats held to a higher standard than Republicans? They’re out burning, looting, and shooting, while their politicians support them. They even make it easier by telling cops to stand down. They have no standards at all anymore, let alone high ones.

      Was Hillary Clinton putting out a fake dossier right before an election a higher standard? Was Democrats in the FBI using that fake dossier to spy upon the President, and embroil him in Impeachment, a higher standard? It was ugly trench warfare with anything goes.

      1. Karen, Karen, Karen, you need to stop watching Fox because when you spout their rhetoric, it makes you look stupid. The reason Harry Reid did what he did is because McConnell refused to call any bill for a vote that was approved by Barak Obama. Being the racist pig that he is, he was determined not to allow Barak Obama’s presidency to succeed, despite the clear victory Obama got, twice, no less–in contradistinction to your fat hero cheating his way into our White House and the majority of the American people consistently disapproving of him. Something had to be done to carry out the will of the American people, who overwhelmingly approved of Obama’s agenda. See, Fox only tells you the “rue the day” part–they don’t explain the context. It just kills them that Obamacare got passed and that people love it. Millions have health coverage now that they didn’t and wouldn’t have had. And, guess what? Republicans still are trying to get rid of it–in a pandemic, no less, and at a time when millions of Americans are out of work and don’t have health coverage. Priorities–get rid of Obamacare–let the rest of you figure out how you’re going to pay for care when you get COVID. You can always file for bankruptcy, but you will never live long enough to pay off those student loans that the debt buyers are getting rich from.

        Hillary Clinton’s campaign did not start the Steele investigation, and the “dossier’ was not the impetus for the Mueller investigation. The “dossier” isn’t fake, either–nothing in it has been disproven, and when Trump claims to deny liking a golden shower, that’s proof of nothing because he’s a pathological liar. No one spied on your fat hero, either. That has been disproven. That won’t stop him from continuing to lie about it, or you from continuing to believe it. See, he “won you over”.

    3. “…..democrats are the ‘ethical losers ones….”

      If they were to visit my nail salon in West Hollywood, they would look fabulous in fuchsia colored nails, bright but tasteful wigs and heels that would make most drag queens blush with envy. Throwing molotov cocktails at the poh-poh then would be encouraged by everyone!!!! except by those right-wing bubble Trumpsters who desperately need my nail salon treatment……10% off if you mention my name!

  15. JT you phony. The GOP is already ruining the court and any public confidence in it by their refusing their constitutional duties in 2016 and now ramming a choice through, while the election has already begun in 25 states, and all in the interests of subverting the interests of voters who have spoken clearly in elections of the last 28 years. You don’t care about the court, you care about your team.

    1. One has to wonder whether the person above has ever read the Constitution. The Senate did what the Constitution demanded. Today the President is appointing a new justice to the court based on the Constitution and hopefully the Senate will quickly approve his candidate.

      The democrats have used immoral methods to prevent the President from doing his duty in this regard. They tried to destroy a good man’s life based on lies and deceit. This is what btb supports rather than the constitutional process.

      1. OMG–“a good man”? In whose book and by what definition? Even Trumpsters know that “lying and deceitful” describe Trump–ask any one of the thousands of contractors he cheated by refusing to pay for goods and services. Ask his 2 former wives. Ask his bankruptcy creditors. Why can’t we see his tax returns? Destroy his life? Like he has the right to cheat, lie, destroy our economy, mislead America about the Coronavirus risk, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and 7 million or so infected, and continue basking in glory in the White House formerly occupied by Lincoln, JFK, FDR and other honorable men who served their country.

        Does a “good man” call military personnel “suckers and losers”, mock a disabled reporter or criticize John McCain because his plane was shot down in service to his country? Does he brag about grabbing women by their private parts, or praising White Supremacists, caging young children because they are brown, enacting a ban against Muslims solely based on their faith, or lust after his own daughter? You want to talk about immorality?

        Fortunately, most Americans see this unfit narcissist for what he is and clearly see that he is no leader, that he is clueless about how to do anything other than trying to “make a deal”, which he is also terrible at. We the shape this country is in under his “leadership”: a wrecked economy, hundreds of thousands dead, millions sickened, loss of respect by the rest of the world, trying to take away health care coverage during a pandemic…the list goes on.

    2. Ruining the Court, eh? Elections have “begun,” but no votes will be counted until Election Day. Perhaps, the best thing would be to return to the process set by the Constitution.

    3. BTB thinks the GOP “ruined” the Constitution by following it in 2016, in which Senators had the right to choose for any reason, including “timing.” That “ruined” the Constitution?

      Democrats have opposed the First Amendment (free speech – see Antifa, every university in America, and various hate speech or blasphemy speech proposals), 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms will not be infringed), due process itself (tried to bar anyone on the “no fly list” from buying a gun without any remedy, as well as the Title IX that allowed universities to boot out male students accused of sex crimes without due process), freedom of religion (exhibit A the cake baker constantly harassed because he won’t bake a satanic cake, a Halloween cake, or a blue cake that’s pink inside to celebrate gender dysphoria), and the Electoral College in Article II, Section I.

      The Electoral College gives all states a say, and Democrats are most popular along the coasts. So away with the Electoral College! Anything in the way of Democrats seizing power, must be crushed, including any part of the Constitution.

      It is rather ironic that following the Constitution is decried as ruining it, while Democrats openly, and blatantly, assault individual freedoms in the Constitution with the regularity of a metronome.

      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-now-attack-3-of-the-10-bill-of-rights/

  16. FDR’s threat of packing the court worked so it would seem to be the only useful tool Democrats would have at this point to get Republicans to reconsider pushing a nominee through right now. Probably will not work, but hard to think of any other card Democrats may have to play. I am not sure anyone is seriously arguing that they want to pack the court based on “principle.” I also don’t think there was any real “principle” involved with Republicans blocking the Garland nomination – they did it because they could. The Republicans have the raw power right now, but it is likely that Democrats will regain power. Will that give enough Republican Senators concern about future blowback from going forward with this Supreme Court nomination process right now?

  17. As far as Biden holding his cards close to his chest if expanding and stacking the court happens, then the people can rise up, vote in the opposition and reverse the situation. At this moment in light of the Garland maneuver and the present situation, Biden doesn’t have to say anything. There are larger issues at stake. For instance we have a blithering idiot for President and a toxic Republican Party that would allow this idiot to run roughshod over the country if it meant power.

  18. “ If Biden considers this a viable option, he is not a viable candidate for many of us. “

    I guess Professor Turley that means you have to vote for Trump because Biden is a candidate in name only. He is there to appeal to the center left, … you. However, he is run by the extreme left that believes in packing the court and all sorts of things I doubt you agree with. That is what happens when a political party goes crazy.

    You and Alan Dershowitz (my other favorite) will have to do a lot of thinking because the extreme left is against almost everything the two of you stand for.

    1. Allan:

      I loved this interview by Dave Reuben, in which they discussed why moderates should hold their nose and vote for Trump, because the alternative allows the Left to actually establish institutional racism in the US, and other attacks on individual rights.

      https://youtu.be/fbCmbLsW0r8

      1. Thank you Karen, I will finish the video later even though I think I read his works elsewhere or in City Journal. He hit an important point in history from which a lot of things expand, the Frankfurt School.

Leave a Reply