Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the call for a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and the packing of the Supreme Court with up to six new members to secure a majority. Both ideas were expressly denounced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed, to achieve these objectives, the Democratic members will have to tear down the very rule established by Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing.
The refusal of Vice President Joe Biden to answer repeated questions about his position on the packing of the Supreme Court is deeply troubling. This is a proposal raised not by the Republicans but his own running mate Kamala Harris and leading Democrats. It would destroy the Supreme Court and voters should know if Biden would consider such an irresponsible act, particularly when he previously denounced it. The refusal to stand against the proposal is a fundamental failure of leadership. Rather than confront the most extreme elements of his party, Biden has chosen to remain silent on a major issue in this election. Frankly, that is not the Biden that many of us knew from his time in the Senate. He should take a stand against this pernicious idea and defend the institution, as he did in 2019.
Those arguing for proposal are not subtle. University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter declared total license due to the failure to vote on Merrick Garland and now the effort to vote on Amy Coney Barrett: “If they pack the court, the Democrats would be crazy not to do their own court packing.” However, those are vacancies where the Senate used its constitutional power to withhold or hold a vote. I called for a vote on Garland but there was nothing unconstitutional in the withholding of the vote. Indeed, Ginsburg herself insisted that vacancies should be filled even in an election year in 2016. The fact is that, even if the Senate voted and rejected Garland, many of the same voices would still be supporting a court packing scheme. The packing scheme would change the Court for the sole purpose of securing an ideological majority. It would create a new and fundamentally flawed Court — a sad reflection of our age of rage.
When asked about calls to expand the Court, Ginsburg said it would destroy the continuity and cohesion of the Court. She added to NPR last year: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’” The greatest insult is that these individuals are using Ginsburg’s death to change the Court in the very ways that she opposed in her life.
Here is the prior column:
Subtlety has been a stranger to our politics. This is the age of rage, and there is little room for nuance. That is evident in the intense debate over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Democrats have dispensed with any pretense in their calls to block her and pack the bench with more justices. What they want is a Supreme Court with litmus test confirmations where Senate votes are conditioned on pledges.
Several Democrats have said they will ask Barrett about her view of any challenge to Roe versus Wade, and cases like the pending challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, she faced such demands from Richard Blumenthal and others for her confirmation as a federal appellate judge, and several Democrats voted against her since she did not promise to uphold Roe. In their campaigns last year, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders pledged to nominate only those who would uphold Roe.
Hillary Clinton lashed out at Barrett and nominees of President Trump for failing to support particular cases. She has declared, “A number of them would not even say they agreed with Brown versus Board of Education or with other precedents. It is not just a question of choice. It is a question of whether we are going to continue the move toward progress.” Most of the nominees have insisted, as a rule, that it is unethical to comment on cases or issues that might come before them, and that practice is known as the Ginsburg rule, for the very justice who Clinton praised as a model.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg believed it was wrong to demand assurances on how justices will vote. In her confirmation hearing in 1993, she refused to give the answer that Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Sanders, Clinton, and others now demand from her potential successor. In calling to protect the legacy of Ginsburg, these politicians have to first tear down the Ginsburg rule. They demand that Barrett and other nominees commit to supporting specified cases while pushing them to reverse other cases, such as Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission on campaign finance.
I have criticized the Ginsburg rule, which is used by nominees to refuse giving more than elusive statements on their judicial philosophy. It has reduced critical confirmation hearings to formulaic exercises with silent nominees and bloviating members of the Senate. Nominees must be able to talk about their judicial philosophy and the basis for individual rights, without demands to hear their positions on pending cases.
What politicians are advocating today, however, is a direct litmus test. Not only will they vote against a nominee who opposes a particular case, but they will do so for a nominee who does not expressly support a case. Even if a nominee like Barrett has a foundation in the law, it is how she will vote on certain controversial cases instead of her views that will matter.
Such conditional votes were rejected before the Ginsburg rule. Presidents since Ronald Reagan have pledged not to apply litmus tests. Past sessions of the Senate under the control of both Democrats and Republicans have maintained it is wrong to demand assurances on certain cases and claims. Indeed, many current members of the Senate supported Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in refusing to discuss their views on abortion.
Once these demands are made for cases like Roe, other groups will call for similar litmus tests for cases such as Obergefell versus Hodges, which supports same sex marriage, or cases in favor of environmental or other rights. Conversely, while politicians speak of preserving the precedents, they have pressed nominees to commit to reversing cases like Citizens United. If forced to give such assurances in confirmation hearings, then justices could face later claims of perjury if they changed their minds or voted differently on the Supreme Court. Nominations would become a series of pledges of positions to secure votes in the Senate.
For the scheme to pack the Supreme Court proposed by Kamala Harris and others to work, there must be some kind of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add new justices to ensure a bench that would vote on cases as desired. Absent such promises, the scheme is a futile exercise. The whole point is to force outcomes such as voting to uphold Roe. This rationale is reaching truly dystopian levels, with the former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by creating a new ideological majority, Democrats would remove politics from the Supreme Court.
Litmus tests and the idea to pack the bench would not honor Ginsburg. They would instead destroy the Supreme Court she loved. These moves would obliterate an institution that has over history preserved the stability and continuity of our country. The Supreme Court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans that will surely evaporate if Democrats conduct litmus tests or pack the bench.
Joe Biden has been asked if he supports these calls to pack the Supreme Court and has refused to answer, despite denouncing such plans in the past. In the debate, when Chris Wallace pressed the issue, Biden declared, “Whatever position I take on that, it will become the issue, and the issue is the people should speak.” Many Americans would not vote for a candidate who considers, let alone supports, a scheme to pack the bench with more justices. Yet Biden refuses to give his position on an important issue raised by his own running mate and other leading Democrats this year.
Ginsburg articulated her rule because she saw litmus tests as unethical pledges. At the time, Democrats like Howell Heflin praised her position. Today, Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court and seek assurances from nominees on cases like Roe, which are two ideas staunchly opposed by Ginsburg. What is left behind is not principle but raw power, and both the Supreme Court and the country will be the worse for it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Putting aside Amy Barrett, who is a fine jurist and will make excellent SCOTUS member. about this “court-packing” plan
Americans should fear this in the medium term, but in the long run, it will simply accelerate the end of the United States as a continuous constitutional regime since 1789.
Right now, there could again be a serious geographic rupture between blue-state coastal regions plus some others like Illinois over major economic problem in the blue state areas.
MAJOR. top heavy with pensions is one problem
That problem is not so far out. It is presently a major point of difference between the yet-unpassed next bailout bills. Democrats want other states to bail out the likes of Illinois, ie, CHICAGO, and Republicans refuse to impose this burder on the Red States. Why? Because incredibly unfair the high paid public employees of cities like NYC or Chicago get to impose their unfunded pension burdens on citizens who have never lived in those places. The incompetence of the pension adminstrators should be borne by these big cities and not the peasants in flyover.
Longer term issue, now that they have tasted bloom, BLM will never be satisfied until they get their “Reparations.” Again this is not only an issue that has major partisan difference, but it is also a major geographic difference. Why should Northern states have to RE-pay the bill that was ALREADY PAID IN BLOOD over a century ago?
Why should white citizens be taxed to just fork it right over to black ones/? Talk about “unconstitutional” on the face of it, but, under current tax law cases, maybe not?
So one day these issues may get forced down the throats of the Red states. Red states can and should rebel against this and start a constitutional divorce. Eject California and New York, make them part of Canada if Canada wants them. But in the end, these two issues are both the palpable edge of a growing major political, social, and geographic divide
It’s long overdue for another constitutional convention. Maybe that’s the way to break it all up peacefully.
One way or another, such a divorce is inevitable. The question is who will get their ducks in a row to win the contest once it is openly joined. Right now the blue states are like a profligate, spendthrift, borderline spouse who ever wants to spend more more and more, spends all her wages and lots of her husband’s too, wants to lazy about the house not doing any work, and throws a fit every so often. FIRE HER AND MOVE ON. I say we DUMP California and New York and we who remain will be way, way better off.
a 5 pt swing in black vote will turn illinois red.
Trump went after the Blue collar vote – and he got it.
He is going after the black and hispanic vote and there are lots of polls that say he is making large gains.
The voters Trump is flipping from Blue to read and NOT likely returning to the democrats.
A strongly federalist court would likely prevent the divorce you fear.
Let the Blue states destroy themselves – keep the federal government out of it.
Let them have all their socialist fantasies inside their own states – without foisting them on the country.
The courts don’t get to decide national breakups
Armies do
I agree, but actual federalism is an effort to prevent us from getting there.
I have no problem with SCOTUS saying that if Californians wish to screw themselves they are free to do so.
John, Illinois is headed for BANKRUPTCY
but states can’t file BK.
So they are looking to Congress. Democrats want to send them tens of billions to bail out their corrupt pension funds.
Republicans dont, thank God. That is a huge factor in the current tension. this is a money factor and people are blissfully unaware of such tings.
this is from back in april. it’s just gone sideways since then
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/22/bankruptcy-or-bailout-mcconnell-and-pritzker-give-their-answers-for-illinois-pensions/#4a6e2da85676
I know Illinios is headed for Bankruptcy – something else that might turn the state red.
I beleive Hamilton bailed the states out of their revolutionary war debts but allowed them to tank when they spent themselves into incolvency.
As I have said previously, I think adding two justices to the Supreme Court is an appropriate and proportional response to what the Republicans did in 2016 wth respect to the Scalia vacancy and what they are doing now with respect to the Ginsburg vacancy.
So try to do so and see if you manage to win the election in 2022.
The actions of both republicans and democrats on this and numerous other issued have been political.
They have gambled that those choices would not cost them at the polls.
So far Republicans have won those bets big time, and Democrats have lost.
It is not McConnell who coined the phrase elections have consequences.
It is not McConnell who changes the Senate rules for confirming judges.
Go ahead stack the court. But atleast be honest about doing it.
Regardless. I am not all that concerned if you do.
I can not know the outcome – but I expect it will be bad for democrats.
The most obvious possibility is that it will result in states calling a constitutional convention.
They haven’t done anything unlawful, unfair, or discourteous. Only a worthlessly partisan Democrat would think otherwise.
Turley: you are such a hypocrite. You wrote: ” In calling to protect the legacy of Ginsburg, these politicians have to first tear down the Ginsburg rule. They demand that Barrett and other nominees commit to supporting specified cases while pushing them to reverse other cases, such as Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission on campaign finance.”
Barrett is being nominated specifically because she will rule against Roe v. Wade and will probably use stare decisis to uphold Citizens United, so corporations can continue to unfairly donate money to politicians. Stare decisis only applies when it can be used politically or to further the radical conservative agenda. Her views do not reflect those of the majority of the American people, most of whom believe that her confirmation should not go forward until after the election, and then not at all if Trump loses. Most Americans support Roe v. Wade. Her nomination was pushed by the Federalist Society solely because she conservative in the extreme and because she IS NOT OBJECTIVE, as shown by her writings and the views she has expressed. Turley knows what these are, and that most Americans would find her positions objectionable, so he tries to cite Ginsberg as a reason why Barrett shouldn’t even be asked about the positions she has taken on controversial issues. Every time Turley tries to equate Barrett with Ginsberg, he reveals just how big a partisan he is.
Turley decries Democrats wanting to add more members to achieve a balance that better reflects the values and beliefs of the majority of the American people. He also complains because Biden won’t take a position as of this time. Why should he? Barrett hasn’t been confirmed yet, and at the rate Republicans are dropping from COVID, it might not happen. Then, there are the facts, the overriding one being that packing the Court with ultra conservatives denies the American people a voice in who serves a lifetime appointment on the court of last resort. Obama, who didn’t cheat to win the presidency and who was fairly elected twice by a strong majority, was denied his nomination by McConnell because Scalia died in February and the election was 11 months away. Too close to a change in leadership, according to McConnell, so it’s not fair for a lifetime appointment to be made. That was the rule then, but not now, when Republicans have a chance to pack the Supreme Court with judges with extreme views. Never forget that Trump cheated to get in the White House, he lost the popular vote, and now Republicans are pushing ahead with a nomination, which they say is OK because the Senate and President are of the same party. They didn’t say that in 2016, and there is no logic supporting this position. Trump’s occupancy of the White House was opposed by most Americans, who also do not approve of the move to rush ahead, but Republicans don’t care. It’s all about power for a party that Donald Trump and McConnell are destroying. This was not the situation when Ginsberg expressed her opinions, and there can be no doubt she would not approve of what’s going on now. In fact, she expressed her “fervent” desire that no nomination be made until after the election. This is why Turley is a hypocrite for citing Ginsberg as a reason to push ahead with Barrett’s nomination.
“Barrett is being nominated specifically because she will rule against Roe v. Wade”
I doubt that – but if true SO WHAT ? Nothing would energize the left and assure the GOP had minority status accross the country more than a complete ban on abortions.
While I think you are wrong, If Republicans are prepared to pay the political consequences for doing so, they can end federal protection for abortion.
But more realistically, if Abortion is addressed at all, there are two much more likely outcomes.
1). Rowe is left intact but collapses to unrestricted abortion prior to 20 or 24 weeks and and permitting states to have an outright ban after.
This will outrage a few on the left, but it will have the support of a super majority of americans.
2). Rowe will be completely overruled and replaced with what we should have had in the first place – a decision based on centuries of common law that even Progrssive Laurence Tribe once supported. SCOTUS will find an absolute constitutional right of a women to her own body, and allow women at anytime during preganancy to demand that the fetus be removed from their body.
But it will also find that the unborn has rights too. That while the woman can have the child removed that states can require that the removal maximize the odds of that child surviving. Such a decision gets the courts out of the science and back into law, where they belong.
“and will probably use stare decisis to uphold Citizens United,”
CU was properly decided consistent with hundreds of years of prior decisions.
A corporation is merely a group of people who have joined legally for a common purpose.
You can not restrict the rights of people acting together any more than you can restrict those of individuals.
“so corporations can continue to unfairly donate money to politicians.”
Hillary radically outspent Trump – and lost. Biden is outspending Trump by far more than Hillary.
If you really beleive that corporate money changes elections – then why aren’t democrats always winning when they are generally outspending republicans by orders of magnitude.
Biden has received 5 times as much in donations from WallStreet.
But god forbid that democratic ideology should conform to facts.
If corporations are buying government – they are buying democrats, and they are getting a very poor return on their money.
“Stare decisis only applies when it can be used politically or to further the radical conservative agenda.”
Stare Decisis is just a norm. It is the foundation of conservatism. It is the principle that one should be careful when disturbing what has worked for centuries – even if flawed and replacing it with the unknown.
It does not say change should not be made that we should live with broken things forever, only that we should go forwarded slowly and cautiously.
Sounds wise to me.
“Her views do not reflect those of the majority of the American people, most of whom believe that her confirmation should not go forward until after the election, and then not at all if Trump loses.”
According to Rassmussen a plurality of voters Want Barrett Confirmed – by a 7% margin.
Barrett’s confirmation in not as politically divisive as you claim no matter what. No one is changing their vote to Biden because Barrett will be confirmed.
“Most Americans support Roe v. Wade.”
And most americans support banning abortion entirely after 24 weeks.
“Her nomination was pushed by the Federalist Society”
True, but the federalist society is NOT traditional conservatives – they are more libertarian that conservative.
“solely because she conservative in the extreme and because she IS NOT OBJECTIVE,”
Because you say so ? While libertarian party support is almost nonexistant in this country – loosely libertarian voters outnumber both progressives and conservatives, and are found in both parties.
“as shown by her writings and the views she has expressed.”
So what are these views you claim are out of touch ?
Regardless, the question is NOT whether the majority of americans agree with her on every issue – no judge meets that criteria.
It is whether she will failthfully follow the constitution. If she does so consistently – then we have the rule of law. If you do not like Barrett’s decisions you can change the law or the constitution.
You want to see Citizen’s untied reversed – if you really beleive that is what americans want – amend the constitution.
You want Rowe to be irreversable – then amend the constitution.
So long as the courts follow the constitution – we can always be sure that the law and government we have will follow the constitution, and that if we do not like that we can change it by changing the constitution. That is what an ACTUAL living constitution means.
The meaning of the constitution does not change because the times have changed – that is an impossibly vague standard.
The meaning of the constitution changes when we change the constitution.
You are free to do so.
“Turley knows what these are, and that most Americans would find her positions objectionable, so he tries to cite Ginsberg as a reason why Barrett shouldn’t even be asked about the positions she has taken on controversial issues. Every time Turley tries to equate Barrett with Ginsberg, he reveals just how big a partisan he is.”
We all have her writings and lectures. We are all capable of knowing where she stands. I actually agree with Ginsberg that judges should not answer questions about how they would rule on potential cases. Their record should speak for itself. Ginsberg’s and Barrett’s
You say Barrett has left a trail that proves she is unacceptable – then make that public and get people to push their Senator’s to reject her.
“Turley decries Democrats wanting to add more members to achieve a balance that better reflects the values and beliefs of the majority of the American people.”
You have a serious problem distinguishing between your own views and those of the american people. You are also under the delusion we live in a democracy.
As has been said ABSOLUTELY Democrats can pack the supreme court (and the republicans can do so in the 2+ months between the election and the inauguration). Both parties should be honest with voters. Republicans – particularly Trump has been.
Trump has made his list of potential scotus mnominees public – Biden has not. Trump had the oportunity to stack the court – and he has not. Biden should be open about whether he will or will not. He should promise one way or the other – and keep that promise.
Biden is correct that whatever he says it will be an issue – and it SHOULD be. and it IS.
“He also complains because Biden won’t take a position as of this time. Why should he?”
You spent 4 years telling us voters were entitled to Trump’s taxes – which tell us nothing. ‘
Biden’s planned actions as president are absolutely relevant to the election. Of course he should take a position.
It is an important issue.
“Barrett hasn’t been confirmed yet, and at the rate Republicans are dropping from COVID, it might not happen.”
Trump’s medical team is saying that he may be discharged soon. Republicans do not seem to be dropping as you predict.
Aparently Covid is NOT a death sentence. And in fact only about 2.5% of the americans who actually get Covid die from it.
Higher than the flu, but there are still 4 times as many cancer deaths this year than C19, and we did not shutdown the country for Cancer.
“Then, there are the facts, the overriding one being that packing the Court with ultra conservatives denies the American people a voice in who serves a lifetime appointment on the court of last resort.”
Nope, you had the right to vote in 2016 – and Trump was elected. You can vote again in a month.
All we ask is that like Trump you are HONEST about what you intend to do.
If you are going to pack the court SAY SO.
And like Trump TELL US the type of justices you will appoint.
“Obama, who didn’t cheat to win the presidency and who was fairly elected twice by a strong majority, was denied his nomination by McConnell because Scalia died in February and the election was 11 months away.”
Obama was “fairly elected” in 2008. But not by some massive majority. He was narrowly re-elected in 2012 – after lying about Benghazi.
Obama was not denied his nomination – He nominated Merrit Garland. Trump nominated ACB. Same thing.
The constitution gives the senate the power to confirm. Garland did not get confirmed. You may not like the political way that was done, but as Obama said – “elections have consequences”. Republicans were given control of the senate by voters to prevent Obama from tilting the court.
McConnell gambled that Clinton would not win. And that was a pretty big gamble. Ginsberg gambled that she would live until Trump was out of office. She lost. That is how it goes.
“Too close to a change in leadership,”
So vote.
“That was the rule then”
There is no actual rule. There is a law setting the number of SCOTUS justices to 9, Democrats with control of the house, the senate and the presidency can change that. And if they do voters can react. So GO AHEAD.
“but not now, when Republicans have a chance to pack the Supreme Court with judges with extreme views.”
Not extreme views – just views you do not like. Regardless, it is not supposed to be the views of the justices that matter, it is supposed to be the words of the constitution – all of them, even the ones that you do not like.
If you want your way – change the constitution.
In the meantime live with it as it is. Quit trying to change it by word games.
” Never forget that Trump cheated to get in the White House,”
Nope, payed by the rules and won.
“he lost the popular vote”
The presidential election is NOT decided by popular vote – that is the RULE.
Pretending that winning the popular vote is winning the election is CHEATING.
If you do not like this – change the constitution.
“and now Republicans are pushing ahead with a nomination, which they say is OK because the Senate and President are of the same party.”
Yup.
“They didn’t say that in 2016, and there is no logic supporting this position.”
You are correct about what they said and still wrong. I do not beleive there is any instance in which the Senate was help by one party and the WH by the other in an election year that a supreme court apointment was confirmed. There is also not an instance where the senate and WH were of the same party where a nominee was not confirmed. Republicans are following 2 centuries of norms.
If you want different norms – changes the constitution.
Or do not allow republicans to control the senate.
“Trump’s occupancy of the White House was opposed by most Americans,”
And yet he was elected following the rules.
I would note that Trump’s approval is and has been indistinguishable from that of Obama throughout his presidency.
If approval is the sole factor – Trump will win – just as Obama did.
“who also do not approve of the move to rush ahead, but Republicans don’t care.”
Then you can vote them out. That is how it works.
“It’s all about power for a party that Donald Trump and McConnell are destroying.”
Crocodile tears. Are you really worried about the long term viability of the GOP ?
The GOP is in no danger of imploding, Democrats are.
“This was not the situation when Ginsberg expressed her opinions, and there can be no doubt she would not approve of what’s going on now. In fact, she expressed her “fervent” desire that no nomination be made until after the election.”
The constitution says nothing about the ferverent wishes of a dying justice for their successor.
If this is important – change the constitution.
What you demonstrate plainly is that the Democratic party are usurpers, and then when push comes to shove, refer to laws and processes that were just trampled as an argument. I think this just boils down to, “wanting it both ways (with a participation trophy to boot…).”
It isn’t just “the left” who oppose overturning Roe v. Wade–it’s the majority, including those in favor of limited government, believing that the government should have no role in personal reproductive decision-making. Rasmussen has no credibility whatsoever. Barrett has already said, in speeches, how she’ll do it: can’t outright overturn Roe because of stare decisis, but come up with ways for states to put so many obstacles in the way of obtaining a legal abortion that it effectively works the same as a ban. We live in an era where everything is recorded now. Why shouldn’t the values and beliefs of most Americans prevail? And, she’ll do the same with the Affordable Care Act, which most Americans support, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Trump has no nominees–he is an arrogant ignoramus, so he follows what the Federalist Society tells him because his handlers have told him that this will get the Evangelicals to vote for him. Pretending that Trump has a clue about SCOTUS nominations, or the beliefs or qualifications of any of the judges on the list handed to him is a lie in and of itself. Trump is no leader.
Trump did cheat to get in the White House–read the Mueller Report. Poll after poll since Trump’s wrongful occupation of our White House prove that the judgment of the majority of the American people was correct when they rejected him in 2016. Every day he spends in the White House is an affront to the values, beliefs and wishes of the American people, which is why there were unprecedented and huge demonstrations after he began stinking up our White House. And, no. Obama did not have consistently less than 50% approval ratings for 4 years, either. In fact, Trump has set a record for negative approval ratings.
Republicans currently control the Senate largely because of gerrymandering. That is an established fact. Their intention is to grab and hold onto power for as long as possible, regardless of what the American people want. The Republican Party of people like Ronald Reagan is dying. Trump is hastening its demise. If you don’t believe it, read the writings of George F. Will, Rick Wilson, Steve Schmitt, and Michael Steele, former RNC chairman.
“It isn’t just “the left” who oppose overturning Roe v. Wade”
So what ? You are engaged in multiple fallacies. ACB has not overturned Rowe. You do not know that she will – and if she does you do not know how she will.
There is no supermajority or even plain majority support for Rowe. There is possibly a bare majority supporting some right to abortinons – not all forms of abortion on demand.
You can not presume the future and then use your detailed assimptions that are unlikely to be true to argue legitimately in the present.
Your claim that Barrett has committed to whittling away at Rowe is speculation – but assuming it is true – super majorities of americans actually support that.
56% of americans would absolutely ban nearly all abortions after 20weeks, and that majority becomes a supermajority at 24 weeks.
Further contra the left that will have negiglable impact on abortion. The primary driver for late term abortions is NOT the life of the mother or rape or incest or any of the other claims of the left – it is the fact that time has nearly run out. Change the deadline and abortions will occur earlier when they are cheaper and safer and less offensive.
You correctly say we live in an era were everything is recorded. So instead of the Senate Grilling ACB, lets just actually look at her record.
You say she has said things – well link to those things, let the news run with them and trhe rest of us can decide and write letters to our senators. There is no need for the farce that is a congressional inquest.
As you say – we purportedly KNOW ACB from her record. Well let that record speak for itself.
“Trump has no nominees–he is an arrogant ignoramus, so he follows what the Federalist Society tells him because his handlers have told him that this will get the Evangelicals to vote for him. ”
Not true – but so what ?
Absolutely Trump has delegated a substantial portion of selecting and vetting Judges tot he Federalist society – and as a libertarian he could not have made a better move.
I doubt that evangelicals would have picked the federalist society as the means to their judicial ends. The federalist society is about as libertarain as you can get and still call yourself conservative.
If you want to actually know something about Federalists – try reading some leading federalists – like Randy Barnet and restoring the lost constitution. Abortion is NOT very high on the list of Federalist values or agenda items. Limited government and a judiciary faithful to the constitution as written actually is.
“Pretending that Trump has a clue about SCOTUS nominations”
Again So what ? Obama had no clue about the constitution either – no president has been found to have acted unconstitutionally 9-0 by SCOTUS more than your faux constitutional scholar – you know the Worst president in US history.
“or the beliefs or qualifications of any of the judges on the list handed to him is a lie in and of itself. Trump is no leader.”
And yet with few exceptions his judicial appointments have been stellar. Even left wing legal analysts have noted that these guys have incredible credentials. Trump has put more judges that graduated from top 10 laws schools, that graduated at or near the top or their classes that have clerked for federal judges, that have clerked for supreme court justices than any president ever.
There have even a few mistakes – mostly for ALJ positions which are fake judges anyway, and not even required to be lawyers.
“Trump did cheat to get in the White House”
Nope, played by the rules.
“read the Mueller Report”
Did, does not say that. Worse still it is just the posturing of a bunch or angry democrats who went out big game hunting and could not come back with even a squirrel. And BTW what we now know is there NEVER was any substance to any of this nonsese. It is all grap that Hillary ordered up in collusion with actual russian agents. OOPS. Who colluded with Russia ?
“Poll after poll since Trump’s wrongful occupation of our White House”
It is not YOUR whitehouse. And Trump’s approval since election has never been more than a few points from that of Obama at the same time – and most of the time higher.
“prove that the judgment of the majority of the American people was correct when they rejected him in 2016.”
And yet they did not. If you do not like the rules – amend the constitution.
You did not do so when Obama was president, you did not do so when Clinton was president, or Carter or ….
You are unhappy now because you do not like the outcome – sour grapes nothing more.
“Every day he spends in the White House is an affront to the values, beliefs and wishes of the American people,”
Then you should be able to win the 2020 election without cheating – without mail=in ballot fraud. You should be happy to be sure that only people who are citizens and registered to vote get to vote and only once, and that no one else fills out their ballots for them, and that they are not poad to vote.
“which is why there were unprecedented and huge demonstrations after he began stinking up our White House.”
And yet they are not. Absolutely the left has behaved with the violence they claim those on the right.
But the Tea Party protests dwarfed those against Trump – and no violence, no arson, and they even cleaned up the trash leaving the mall better than they found it.
Those opposing lockdowns protested at state capitals, They did so carrying guns. And yet not a shot was fired, not a policement or anyone else was harmed.
You can not protest anything without looting and burning – even your early protests against Trump involved bricks through windows and dumpster fires.
You are violent spolied toddlers who are not used to not getting your way who think you are entitled.
There is nothing that you want that you can not get for yourself by yourself, but instead you demand it as if it is some right b y stealing from others. Grow up.
Life is not fair – get over it.
“And, no. Obama did not have consistently less than 50% approval ratings for 4 years, either. In fact, Trump has set a record for negative approval ratings.”
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_oct05
“Republicans currently control the Senate largely because of gerrymandering.”
Constitution of the United states, Article I Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Are you saying that Madison and Jefferson 70 years before the republican party came into existance built republican gerrymandering into the constitution ? Or are you claiming that it is those evil republicans who ended slavery and created all those free states that now vote republican ?
Your smoking whacky weed.
“That is an established fact.” A statement that is only possible from someone who has failed to get a decent education.
“Their intention is to grab and hold onto power for as long as possible,”
That is what all politicians and political parties do. But what you have wrong is that to do so they must give people what they want.
promises will get you started but ultimately you must deliver on them. Trump has. Democrats make promises they can not deliver on.
Just look at the nations cities – not a republican in government anywhere, yet these are the worst governed places in the country.
You rant about systemic racism in policing – Neither Trump nor any repoublican is responsible for ANY of the police forces that you seek to defund. You F’d up on your own and now seek to blame others. And you are rioting. looting and burning things down to get what you want.
Toddlers should not play with gasoline.
“The Republican Party of people like Ronald Reagan is dying.”
That remains to be seen – Trump is thus far governing as well as Regan. While he loses points for style, Reagan promised a border wall, Trump is delivering.
“Trump is hastening its demise.”
Maybe – but if I were you I would be more worried about the democratic party.
Jonathan Turley no longer pretends to be objective, much less truthful. While it would be easy to ascribe this dribble to the ravings of the ignorant, his credentials require me to reach for darker impulses to explain this incoherency.
It takes a special type of vein-popping rage to type incessantly about the constitutionality or even appropriateness of Mitch’s refusal to consider filling an open seat under a democrat (to create an opportunity for a future ideological majority), and then try to use convulsing logic to say that it is inappropriate for a future democratic majority leader to use its constitutionally vested power to also create an ideological majority. A careful reader will notice that Turley quickly drops his constitutionality argument — perhaps halfway through writing his hit piece he remembered that there is nothing unconstitutional about changing the number of justices in SCOTUS, but being rushed for time between his tweeting, he decided to leave in the half-baked argument.
As for ‘destroying’ the high court, there is little legitimacy left to lose after Bush v. Gore. Reading this complex legal argument may cause one to understand or even agree with the majority opinion, but complex legalese is not the stuff of legitimacy. The vast majority of Americans, not well-versed in either law or history, saw 5 republicans on the bench electing their man over 4 democrats — even if such a characterization is technically inaccurate. The ghosting of Merrick Garland by senate republicans was just the icing on the cake. It didn’t reduce the legitimacy of the court, it just animated democrats, and in particular far-left groups, to care as much about dominating the federal courts as conservatives and evangelists. So please, Mr. Turley, save your crocodile tears for a different day. They are wasted here.
The rest of this cat litter refers to the Ginsberg Rule, a concept where people getting grilled by the senate refuse to answer questions speculating on how they would vote on future cases. Of course, it would be easy to justify ignoring the Ginsberg rule on the same grounds that republicans now ignore the Mitch rule. Perhaps a new rule to guide senate procedure should follow a 2-part test: (1) will a particular act expand one’s party’s power? If so, (2) is the act constitutional? If yes to both, then do it. But we need not discard the Ginsberg Rule to pack the court. After all, prospective justices are not usually silent about their judicial philosophy, and senate questioning is more a show for the senators than the nominee. Just as fedsoc exists to curate conservatives from law schools, a liberal organization could do the same for its people (and have an easier time of it too). Nominees need not be asked any questions, really. Just look at their resume — gender studies, poli sci, minority advocacy, and membership to the American Constitution Society should be adequate to ensure ideological purity.
But reasoned and nuanced argument would be too much to expect from a now truly Trumpian Turley. As general Mattis once quipped, “the enemy gets a vote too.” Well republicans, under Mitch, have voted. Democrats would be wise to ease up on their internecine sniping of one another on twitter and focus on learning from Turley. After all, if republicans can change senate rules for the convince of their party at the expense of the other, why not democrats?
*PS: Some readers may notice that I did not capitalize certain words. This was not a mistake, but was done to indicate my lack of respect for those things.
Not since 1888 has a Supreme Court nominee, during an election year with the Presidency and Senate split between both parties, been able to actually get on the bench. What happened with Garland was normal and to be expected.
The underlying ruling in Bush v Gore was decided 7 – 2. They split 5 – 4 on the remedy.
Good luck.
Then that’s what Moscow Mitch should have said instead of lying and claiming to be following the “Biden rule” when what he did wasn’t following what Biden said.
It’s Moscow Biden. The family was enriched $3.4 Million by the mayor of Moscow. That is only the tip of the iceberg.
OK, there is documentation on the $3.4 million to Hunter Biden. Can you produce anything outside of your crimson-soaked fantasies about Mcconnell? (who has entirely too many consonants in his name, I might say.)
Instead of strengthening the opposing argument, you might want to consider just wringing your hands.
Moscow Mitch wasn’t talking about Hunter Biden, who has never been elected to any office.
If you’re going to focus on kids, don’t forget how much Trump’s kids have made overseas: Ivanka’s Chinese patents, Eric’s and Don Jr.’s projects in Ireland, India, Indonesia, Uruguay, Turkey and the Philippines.
“If you’re going to focus on kids, don’t forget how much Trump’s kids have made overseas.”
Pure ignorance. What we need are people that make their money in the private sector outside of government rather than people like Joe Biden who get into politics to make their money and support their family.
If the Trump’s are selling government influence – rather than goods and services – I am all for prosecuting them.
But We have the Biden’s for influence peddling dead to rights NOW, so prosecute them.
We have listened to you left wing nuts rant about the emoluments clause for 4 years – with zero substance.
We have real money being paid for the purpose of leveraging a Senator or Vice President – and you are OK with that ?
We have listened to you rant about Citizens united and corporate money influencing politics – and you are OK with the Biden family selling indulgences ?
“Alas alas for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrites that you be
Searching for souls and fools to forsake them
You travel the land you scour the sea
After you’ve got your converts you make them
Twice as fit for hell!
As you are yourselves!”
Mitch McConnell did say it *repeatedly* as Turley often points out…that IS the Biden rule. Go back and read Biden’s speech.
It takes a special type of vein-popping rage to type incessantly about the constitutionality or even appropriateness of Mitch’s refusal to consider filling an open seat under a democrat (to create an opportunity for a future ideological majority), and then try to use convulsing logic to say that it is inappropriate for a future democratic majority leader to use its constitutionally vested power to also create an ideological majority.
I note your own vein-popping rage failed to refute the constitutionality of how and why the Senate majority leader did not take up the nomination of Garland for a vote. Where you fail spectacularly is regarding the appropriateness of actions that are constitutional. McConnell exercised his constitutional authority appropriately and within the system designed by the framers and stupidly changed by the previous majority leader. So of course when our system fails to bend to your will, then it’s the system you feel is appropriate to change it even further. Your lack of respect for the intent of the framers is far more evident than your juvenile attempt to disrespect other things.
I’ll give you some dark impulses. Here’s two. Pure disgust and extreme dislike. I am sick of blue states, they make me want to puke. I know tens of millions feel the same. You want to pick out pockets out of every penny that’s left. Sooner we get a divorce ande dump the weak states that have the profligate spending habits and illiterate and disorderly populations, the better, California is becoming a third world country outside the polished gates of Silicon Valley anyhow. New york descends into chaos. They are a tax sponge for other states needing bailouts and you can add Illlnois and Puerto Rico and some others to that list. I want them out of our federal union.
so. Go ahead, pack the court, and we will use this as the inflection point at which we dissolve the union. Then we can have open war and fix some of these problems they way major political problems have been fixed throughout history. At the end of the line, it will be a safer and saner country for sure. First we’re gonna have to water that tree of liberty.
Haha, you think that blue states are picking red states’ pockets?!?
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
haha, that is for this data set , 2020 covid relief
https://apnews.com/article/48b8109fce0d922a8fb0f5fce20dee92
Im talking about a decades long trend, not one measured in months.
now if you want to talk 2020, dont talk fiscal. that’s a pittance. consider how much money Wall Street — headquartered in New York City, has made in fees, commissions, and stock price growth as the Federal Reserve has conjured up a trillion dollars with mere keystrokes this year. and they promise they can print more!
Where do the rich live? Mostly blue states. The democrats want to subsidize rich democrats and add to already bloated government.
Whose budgets are bloated because of inefficiency? That means that one has to know what the criteria are to know how the flow of money is going. It can be calculated in many ways. If one calculates it based on things like federal subsidies / state spending the percentage of federal subsidies falls when state spending increases. The higher the blue state spending the more deprived they look when it comes to federal spending. Bloat the spending of red states and they will look better based on this criteria.
Then consider the bail outs. You might say it is going to Joe, but in the end it is going to Wall Street something the democrats are supposed to be fighting. Wall Street is in the city of Manhattan in the blue state of New York. (I say city because Anonymous needs the book Geography for Dummies). Eventually the repayment of these debts will be by the people not the billionaires.
Most of the poorly run states with bloated expenditures are blue states. The best run states are red states.
“*PS: Some readers may notice that I did not capitalize certain words. This was not a mistake, but was done to indicate my lack of respect for those things.”
Speaking of darker impulses… you should read your own entry. The fall is a beautiful time. Maybe swap some LED radiation for some good vitamin D generating UV. And you should probably put down the cupcake.
In a world where the media won’t ask Biden hard questions, Wallace probably had the best chance to push Biden on this during the debate but backed down.
1. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices, so is is just fine to court pack. If the Rs can push a vote before the election because they can, then the Ds can pack the court for the same reason.
2. The Court is already very partisan. If it was not, then the Senate would not be doing all they can to rush the confirmation vote.
3. Judaical nominees have biases and they know how they feel about the issues, and asking about them is completely legitimate. Not asking the question does not magically make the person neutral.
4. FU about pretending to care about Ginsburg’s legacy or wishes. You want to install a person who will do all she can to reverse all the advancements that Ginsburg fought for. That is the reason she was nominated.
5. Another FU for good measure.
+10 for good measure
It has in the past been possible to confirm a Supreme court nominee in 19 Days.
If you push too hard on this court packing nonsense:
1). Republicans will have more than 2 months from the election to the innauguration – should Biden win, to expand the supreme court and to suspend the rules of the senate and mass appoint federal judges.
No one is arguing that Democrats could do what some are arguing for if placed in power. But the more that you threaten to do so, the more likely you are to get Republicans to act pre-emptively.
And failing that the more likely you are to loose the Senate in 2022 – should you win it in 2020.
And the presidency in 2024.
One of the things that democrats like you do not grasp is that the country is bitterly divided over most of the issues you favor.
A wise person would understand that even if you have a narrow majority or otherwise have sufficient power to FORCE through your will, doing so GUARANTEES a brutal backlash.
Van Jones got it right on election night 2016 – Trump’s election was a BACKLASH against the excesses of the Obama administration.
Which we now know was more lawless than we thought then.
One of the themes of the Arthurian legends is “man bears the seeds of his own destruction”. Democrats particularly those on the far left should keep that in mind.
I am not particularly concerned about democrats getting elected. If they do so, if they manage to take over all portions of the federal government, Their own behavior, the policies they enact will pretty much guarantee their own failure.
I would further note that we have been teetering on the edge of a constitutional convention for a long time – arguably the states have already authorized one. Regardless it would only take a few more state legislatures voting for one to end up with a constitutional convention. The GOP would have a massive advantage in a constitutional convention.
I would expect a plethora of constitutional amendments that would handicap democrats.
An amendment to fix the size of the supreme court.
Term limits.
Requiring the census to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens.
Requiring the allocation of congressional distructs and funds based on the number of citizens.
Requiring voter id.
Requiring in person voting on a single day.
Requiring a balanced budget or a 2/3 vote to override.
A line item veto.
An amendment allowing the executive to NOT spend funds allocated by congress.
An amendment imposing an automatic sunset clause on all federal laws, Requiring that they be periodically re-authorized.
An amendment allowing a majuority vote in either chamber of congress to invalidate an existing law.
I can go on and on. There are myriads of ways to alter the constitution to make the requirement for limited government more immutable.
Republicans can get away with not voting on Garland, and with voting on ACB, because they have won the hearts and minds of a majority of people that the courts are in chaos and lean too far left.
As to those of you that are worried that a 6-3 Court would result in massive reversals on myriads of core left wing issues.
It MIGHT. And if the court makes changes that sufficiently anger enough of the people there will be a backlash.
But YOU are just ONE and many many more are needed for meaningful backlash.
An amendment to fix the size of the supreme court. – ok
Term limits – on who?
Requiring the census to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. -the census is hard enough, not workable in practice
Requiring the allocation of congressional distructs and funds based on the number of citizens. – I say no, but reasonable to disagree
Requiring voter id. – no, this would enshrine voter suppression into the constitution
Requiring in person voting on a single day – no, dumb idea that would screw the elderly, the ill, the military, and those who have to work
Requiring a balanced budget or a 2/3 vote to override – this is not unreasonable
A line item veto – no, bills are careful comprises among many different groups and to allow one person to mess that up is bad
An amendment allowing the executive to NOT spend funds allocated by congress – Constitution already prohibits this, it just gets ignored
An amendment imposing an automatic sunset clause on all federal laws, Requiring that they be periodically re-authorized – no, most laws are just fine and that makes way too much work, and risks a small group of people to literally gut the federal government
An amendment allowing a majuority vote in either chamber of congress to invalidate an existing law – this is already how it works, with a prez signature
Molly, put this radical Democrat wish list in your pipe and smoke it
Your fixating on details.
The issue of a constitutional convention is that the States can call one completely on their own – without Congress initiating it.
And we are already close to triggering one.
Once a constitutional convention is in the works the specific amendments are either up to the states, or the convention itself.
In most votes for a constitutional convention, the state votes to do so for a specific purpose – for one amendment.
But nothing in the constitution prohibits a constitutional convention from looking at other amendments.
In fact nothing prevents it from drafting a new constitution.
Regardless whatever comes from a constitutional convention must still be ratified by the states.
A constitutional convention is an extraordinary remedy – for extra-0ordinary problems. But stacking the supreme court is pretty much the type of problem that a concstitutional convention is designed to remedy.
Further it is a safety valve – we forget that the declartion of independence was essentially a declaration of war.
It was a justification for violence.
As the declaration states – when government is destructive of individual liberty it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it – by force if necescary.
The left is certain that the right is going to errupt in violence.
Probably because that is what they are already doing, and because most of us grasp that if this comes to actual violence the left is going to lose.
But a vonstitutional convention is a means of excercising oversight over the federal government before resorting to violence.
“Term limits – on who?” Who do you want ?
“Requiring the census to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. -the census is hard enough, not workable in practice”
Bunk, It is trivial. We have asked whether you are a citizen on the short form census nearly every census since the founding. Its recent omission is the exception not the norm. The key issue is not with the census. It is that the language of the constitution does not make it clear that what is being counted to allocate government resources is citizens.
“Requiring the allocation of congressional distructs and funds based on the number of citizens. – I say no, but reasonable to disagree”
And if enough people agree with you it will not pass.
“requiring voter id. – no, this would enshrine voter suppression into the constitution”
What the left calls voter supression is NOT a thing.
Voter ID actually existed at the founding – when you went to the polls they knew who you were.
With the size of congressional districts today that is not possible.
Regardless, if you are tro have elections that people can trust, we must know for certain that those who voted were eligable to vote.
We do not know that today. And Contra the left we do know we have fraud.
We have congressional districts with more registered voters than people. We have congressional districts with more votes cast than registered voters. There are numerous means to commit inperson voter fraud, and almost no means to detect it much less prosecute it.
And vote by mail is 100 times worse.
If you can not secure the elections – then you are no better than Russia.
BTW over 80% of americans support voter ID – including 70% of blacks. The vast majority of the supposedly “suppressed” groups think that the concept that they can not get ID is insulting.
“Requiring in person voting on a single day – no, dumb idea”
Because you say so ?
If I could I would arrange to have a hurricane strike the entire country on election day every year so that only the most determined would vote.
Unstable countries have high rates of voting. in stable countries few people vote. They do not need to – the government does nothing radical. It matters little who wins or loses.
“that would screw the elderly, the ill, the military, and those who have to work”
All trivial to deal with. Vote on one day – one 24 hour period – the exact same 24hrs from NYC to Honoloullu. If you can not find a moment in 24hrs that you are able to vote – that is your problem. If you can not get transport to the polls – that is what the political parties, friends and charities are for. if you are in the military – we already have provisions for that or vote at your base.
“Requiring a balanced budget or a 2/3 vote to override – this is not unreasonable”
Why not ? Because you say so ? Most states require a balanced budget without any possibility of override.
We already know from Roggoff that as a nations debt increases its rate of growth declines.
BTW for much of the US history we required congress to vote for every single issuance of new debt.
For most of the history of this country the budget was balanced.
It is actually quite easy to get to a balanced budget with little pain in about a decade if we want to.
An excellent start is just to require the growth in government spending to be BELOW the growth in revenue.
Simple – as debt is paid off less and less new debt is created and in no time – balanced budget.
“A line item veto – no, bills are careful comprises among many different groups and to allow one person to mess that up is bad”
It is precisely to end that that we have line item vetos. The result is that when congress constructs a budget and the parties negotiate those carefully constructed compromises that you refer to, they are faced with the prospect that the president will strike their wish list item and not the one they compromised for. The result will be that budget provisions will mostly be only those that have majority support on their own.
Sounds really good to me. Compromise is a tool – not a value. It can be used for evil as well as good. When congress compromises and the result is alot of individual items that do not have majority support – that is BAD not good. If government is going to confiscate peoples money the very least that is required is majority support for every penny of spending.
“An amendment allowing the executive to NOT spend funds allocated by congress – Constitution already prohibits this, it just gets ignored”
No the constitution does not. The impoundment act passed during Nixon;’s presidency prohibits it.
That raises another issue. No president can EVER agree to a restriction of executive power that extends beyond his presidency. If you wish to alter the powers of the president – or any branch of congress permanently, you must amend the constitution.
Further – do you understand what a constitutional amendment is – there is nothing currently in the constitution that can not be changed – but only by amendment – not by law, or by fiat by the whim of judges.
You and I can disagree on how the constitution SHOULD be – and we resolve that disagrerement by amending the constitution or failing.
But what it IS is determined by the words in the constitution (and ammedments) as understood by those who ratified the constitution and/or amendments. We are not bound tho their interpretation. But we ARE obligated to substitute ours in the same way they imposed theirs – by amendment.
“An amendment imposing an automatic sunset clause on all federal laws, Requiring that they be periodically re-authorized – no, most laws are just fine and that makes way too much work, and risks a small group of people to literally gut the federal government”
Exactly – the government is far too large, and contra you and the left there is almost nothing that the federal govenrment does that has the actually support of the majority of people.
“An amendment allowing a majuority vote in either chamber of congress to invalidate an existing law – this is already how it works, with a prez signature” You fail to understand. You are discussing hos a law is passed. I am discussing how laws can easily be REVOKED.
We make it hard to pass a law – requiring a majority of the house, the senate and the president to agree. But still quite often and sometimes quickly it becomes evident that the law was a bad idea. Valid law must not only get super majority support for one moment in time, it must sustain it FOREVER to remain valid. I will use an example that might reach you. Jim Crow laws were passed in the south. Wouldn’t you want it to be easy to have either chamber of future legislatures OR the governor declare those laws invalid ?
You are complaing because I want to make the work of government harder – and you are absolutely correct.
Government is FORCE, and we should think HARD before using force. And it should be easy to fix when we make a mistake.
This is actually important. In the free market bad choices are quite effectively punished by the market – screw up and customers go away, screw up enough or big enough – you are out of business. Government is actuallyu far more prone to error than markets. LEss effort is spent examining the consequences of actions, and even more important almost no effort is spent determining whether a government action or law is effective after it is passed. While the opposite is true in markets. But the discipline in markets is failure. Government is an institution we can not allow to fail. JC Penny can fail. The federal govenrment can not. To avoid failure we must make government action harder and to make undoing bad choices easier. Undoing a bad law is a positive good. Undoing a good law – which is unlikely is a minor speed bump. we liv ed without it before we will again. And if it is actually critical then the support needed to restore it will be present.
Another +10
A rare pat on the back by anonymous. Generally Anonymous pats itself on the back. That is pretty sad.
“Biden declared, “Whatever position I take on that, it will become the issue, and the issue is the people should speak.”
WTF is that supposed to mean?!
Whoever was talking into his earpiece pulled that answer out of their ass.
We as voters need to know our candidates position on such important matters. We already know the kind of judges President trump will name. (He made a list). Biden hasn’t produced a list, that fine. But we should know his views on scotus expansion. If he won’t say, we have to listen to the views of Harris.
A vote for Biden or any democrat is a vote to destroy the structure of America that made America great. Biden will destroy the Supreme Court as the third independent branch of government while using violence and abhorrent laws abridge our basic rights including the right of freedom of speech.
‘Frankly, that is not the Biden that many of us knew from his time in the Senate.’
Frankly Professor, that has been true of him and dems in general for some time now. We could have nipped it in the bud if at the time the left didn’t proclaim everyone raising eyebrows (including people like me, a lifelong Independent) to be a member of the rightest of right wing militias.
Same question, different day: where were you then? What do you propose we do now? Clearly voting for the DNC is out of the question. For my part, I’m voting a straight red ticket, and will henceforth unless ‘classical liberals’ find their spines and stand up to the children and their Svengalis.
For real, not hyperbolically or to condescendingly placate. Most of us are not as plain dumb and easily influenced as the average modern progressive. Capitulation isn’t strength, JT, conscious choice is.
James, good post. I agree.
Allan is using two icons again.
I always admitted to using two icons and they have been consistent since I have been here. You can look at them together and memorize them as can anyone else. I also use constantly use my name. But you use the Anonymous name and generic icon because you are a Coward and like to blame others for your failures like Manhattan is a city. You also like to flash and have used other pictures so that you could pretend you are more than one person and keep your numbers down while blaming others for your foolishness. You even use the Anonymous name to pat yourself on the back for moral support.
One can only laugh at an individual that requires so many different aliases and so much reassurance most of it from itself.
Allan is an old man with no where to go, no one to share his few remaining years on this Earth, showing us how pathetic his existence is. sad as f***
PaintChips, you have gone from bizarre to a morbid obsession.
Thanks Allan, and likewise.
James, I agree with Allen, good post. I would add a few things. After observing the metamorphosis of the so called progressive democrat party over the past few decades I have concluded the following: it is only about control. They want to control the way you think, what you say, what you eat, how you heat your homes, what you drive. There is no such thing as personal responsibility because everything wrong in your life is someone else’s fault, everyone is a victim. You are not the creator of your own destiny, the party is. They will give you everything for free as long as you keep voting for them. Single family home ownership is racist (according to AOC) and you are a racist even though you know you are not, but they will convince you that you are (critical race theory). Schools have become re-education camps not seats of learning. If you think differently than they do you are cancelled and effectively a non-entity. It all starts with the denigration of institutions, faith and family, so the only thing left is the state. The MSM has become useful idiots (a term the KGB probably loved). I would go on but would probably just bore everyone, if I haven’t already. Oh, and, probably few people know what “Classical Liberalism” is.
Please do not call modern progressives “liberals”. They are not.
Turley is a liberal. Derschowitz is a liberal. The modern Left is NOT.
A liberal is by definition someone who prizes liberty. Progressives do not.
By calling them “liberal”: you are buying into the 1984 newspeak word mangling that is core to progressivism.
When you change the meaning of words – you change thought – you actually engage in censorship of the mind.
How would we be able to communicate even think about color as an example if the word black and white both meant the same thing and there was no word for the absence of color ?
Destroy the language, destroy the culture. This has been the NWO since PC was forced down all of our throats.
Orwell said it best:
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
George Orwell, 1984
Dear Professor Turley:
Many of your columns have taken aim at Democrats or at Democratic ideas. I agree with the overwhelming number of your pieces. It strikes as odd though, that you would continue to call yourself a liberal Democrat.
My thoughts exactly. J is far to well read and aware of our constitution to be languishing in the muck of democrat ideologies of today.
It may be because he concentrates on the liberal ideas that founded this nation, not the liberalism of today that is trying to destroy the nation and the Constitution. He has the same problem as Alan Dershowitz an avowed democrat who not that long ago said he would be voting for Biden not Trump even though he testified on behalf of Trump and the Constitution.
Some people can actually maintain a clear vision. I disagree with the ideology of both Turley and Dershowitz but respect them for upholding the Constitution. That is the problem with democrats. AS soon as one refuses to change their principles to conform with the party line democrats turn against them. That demonstrates democrats have no principles and are not the same as the older democrats like JFK.
“Many of your columns have taken aim at Democrats or at Democratic ideas.”
I believe our good Professor sees himself as a liberal Democrat, not a leftist. There is a stark difference.
The Pinkos have lost any integrity and fairness.
They are willing to destroy SCOTUS in order to facilitate killing their children.
Irony.
Children often vote like their parents.
If the 50 million or so murdered children were alive today, the Dems would have an absolute majority, but having killed their children, Dems now have to resort to electoral games to stay in power.
monument shows a silver lining I guess
this is why I suspect ROE is in no danger of reversal whatsoever
SCOTUS will not reverse Roe. SCOTUS is not going to get into the business of retracting rights. Talk about a total loss of authority….
Barrett may oppose abortion as an individual, but as a judge she will respect the Roe and its (no pun intended) progeny because these are established as firm precedents. A recognized right cannot be repealed by legislative, judicial or executive fiat.
Sometimes I see JT as one of those liberal mayors who walked out into the BLM crowd of thugs and thought that a nice speech was going to make everybody all warm and fuzzy. I think it was Minneapolis and Portland. Naturlich, the Mob ran them out. The mob did not give a hoot about Martin Luther King, or racial harmony or anything like that. They just wanted to rant, rave, loot, and tear up stuff.
Same here. Democrats do not give a Flying F— about what Ginsberg said, or wanted. They just want POWER and packing the court and adding extra states and letting illegals vote and cheating on voting – all those things help them regain power. Period. Like I has said on multiple occasions:
Trying to explain “principles”, or “right vs. wrong”, or “rules”, or “logical consistency” to a Democrat, is like trying to explain to a bad, cheating, folding metal chair-using, wrestler why he didn’t win the WWF Belt fairly. He is not able to comprehend what you are going on about. All he knows is, that he won the match and the Championship Belt, and so what if his girl friend jumped into the ring while the referee wasn’t looking, and whacked the Good Wrestler over the head with a metal chair! What difference, at this point, does it really make??? After all, he won! He has the Championship Belt! Isn’t that all that matters???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The Dems and Repubs fight over issues like “right to life” vs. “right of privacy” etc.
It would not be good to add to the court’s number of members. Nine is enough.
JT, I wonder what RBG would think of a professor of Constitutional law who censored a perfectly legitimate link concerning our own and other nation’s constitutions being violated by the head of the WHO? I’m sure she would be proud that you would not allow a factual presentation of evidence that is going to be heard in a court of law. Yep, that’s what free speech means today!
This link violates absolutely no policy of this blog. Please take off the censorship and post it or better yet, have the lawyer making the claim come on your site and explain what his suit is about. Or are citizens not allowed to hear the truth?
Please try to share this link again–
So much for the dying declaration of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
What dying declaration?
The one a few days before she died when she said that she hoped the vacancy would be filled by the next president?
That is a non thinking reply from Anonymous. The Ginsberg rule was created by Ginsberg and discussed in her own words. The last hope came from a grieving family, not RBG. No one heard those words from RBG’s lips but an ideological family member who could hear whatever she wanted. I was not a fan of RBG but had respect for her something that was lacking in that family member. I would never have disgraced her legacy with such a comment. Anonymous has proven it is capable of anything, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical.
You’re so easily goaded. Seek help Allan.
Am I, or is it you who is easily goaded. Whenever we hear those words “seek help Allan” we know that you are looking for help but now it is clear that you pretended to be different people and weren’t your help is gone.
She will get her wish since the next President is the one we have now.
I scoured the Constitution and was unable to find the “dying wish” clause. Am reminded of the old saying, “if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.”
Amazing what the dems will do to keep the genocide of the unborn going.
Fingers crossed! Increase funding to Planned Parenthood, is this a good idea?? More abortuaries could help prevent future riots, think about that
I know it’s sinful of me but if what some people say about PP and Margaret Sanger is true, then she was pretty smart, seems to me
Why are we funding PP at all ?
Whether you support Abortion or not – PP is not a government agency, and abortion is not a government service.
PP is a private entity – they should be paid by their clients. And if they need/want more – the rest of us are free to donate.
Just to be clear – my position is the same not merely for organizations tinged by democratic politics, Nor just for those tinged by partisan politics of either party, but accross government.
Charity is NOT a legitimate role for government. None of us should be forced to contribute through government to charitable causes that have managed to torque politicians – left or right.
Charity is individual. If you are on the left – there is no moral merit for advocating to have other peoples money go to the poor.
You are not virtuous because you have persuaded politicians to give money to some good cause of yours.
You are virtuous because YOU have contributed to good causes.
Christ did not say “when you persuaded Ceasar to cloth the naked or feed the hungry, he said when YOU clothed the naked or fed the hungry.
Further there is infinitely more demand for charity than there is money in all the government coffers of the world.
YOU may not demand that I contribute to PP when my prefernce is to contribute to World Hunger Year or the Menonite Central Committee.
Charity is NOT the business of governments.
It is not a moral good for government to help SOME in need. It is a moral FAILURE, it is theft cloaked in false virtue.
If you wish to give – give, YOURSELF. That is virtuous. Theft is not.
Davy Crocket speech to Congress that we should all pay attention to.
https://thestoryoflibertyblog.com/2013/02/16/not-yours-to-give-davy-crocketts-speech-before-the-house-of-representatives/
It is a great speach. Unfortunately I think it was made up.
But I would be happy for proof that Crockett actually delivered it.
So would I.
I’m afraid I don’t share your high opinion of the job the SCOTUS has done or is doing, professor. In fact I think a good case can be made that it is a thoroughly dysfunctional and failed institution that has certainly not enhanced the “stability” and “continuity” of the country or its law. At this point it’s primarily a sinecure for Ivy League law school graduates. They’ve abdicated and punted on their most important responsibilities. I dealt with just one example here: https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/scalia-redux/
But there are many others.
They aren’t perfect. Your proposed solution tells me you are either very young or still have the mentality of one who is. Temper tantrums are seldom if ever the solution to life’s challenges, and very few problems in life are genuinely intractable. Grow up. That isn’t ‘evidence’, just millennial gatcha! opinion to justify their own personal opinion. ‘If someone else said it, it must be true!’ is one of those truths that is true precisely 0% of the time. It’s why we have a judicial branch, genius. Also (potentially, at least) large and functional brains.
JMRJ is 62 years old (with issue) and was admitted to the New York bar in 1989 (after a half-dozen years in the Navy). He comes from a family of lawyers.
I guess JMRJ believes in packing the court so that we don’t need a legislature to pass legislation.
Not really. I just think we’ve been at 9 for too long, there are too many petitions that should be heard but are not. Also the number of judges on federal appeals courts should be greatly increased.
JMRJ, though I prefer a Supreme Court that is smaller I have no ethical dispute with those that suggest it should be larger. That is open to honest debate. However, packing the court is not the same as making it larger. Turley discussed this in a prior post and should his suggestion hold I would make one more suggestion and that is that his suggestion not start in the same presidential term as it was passed.
When I joined this thread it was a legal issues thread. Sadly, it has become a support Trump and bash Democrats thread. It has become a whatever Trump does is great but Democrats better watch out. Professor, what the heck has happened to you?
Funny. When I joined this thread nothing had changed and you still weren’t a real judge. Huh. Confirmation bias. Imagine that.
“It has become a whatever Trump does is great”
So Holmes, specifically point out how this equates to “whatever Trump does is great”?
“Poll: Most Voters In Swing States View Both Trump and Biden As Mentally Unfit”
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/11/poll-most-voters-in-swing-states-view-both-trump-and-biden-as-mentally-unfit/
“I have previously written (here and here) about the need to break the duopoly of power in this country by creating greater opportunity for other parties and candidates. Every presidential election, the voters are told that they have to chose between two candidates who garner little support in their own right. It is the continual replay of “choosing between evils” option for voters.”
You just demonstrated that you are obviously incapable of anything beyond simplistic “us versus them” binary thinking. IOW, you can’t think for yourself, and have zero critical thinking skills. As a result you have to have your chosen team tell you how you’re supposed to think at all times.
This condition was further exacerbated by your team losing back in 2016. Which resulted in you not getting a participation trophy.
After that you further devolved into a state known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Which really a nicer way of saying you are a spoiled rotten brat who doesn’t know how to deal with not always getting what you want..
Which brings us back to participation trophies.
“After that you further devolved into a state known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Which really a nicer way of saying you are a spoiled rotten brat who doesn’t know how to deal with not always getting what you want..
Which brings us back to participation trophies.”
Ouch. You gave the Justice an elbow to the back of the head at the end–just as he thought the pummeling was over. Truth coming at you like a locomotive.
You bring in Ginsberg when it suits you. What about her wish to have the ‘Next’ President appoint a justice? Turley, you are worse than Fox News; and that’s saying something.
+1
Since when did wishes enter the Constitution?
You Pinkos are raising one woman’s reported dying wish to law.
It was reported that Scalia’s last words were “Make SCOTUS conservative”.
Where is your respect for an equally valid wish?
We do not even know that RBG said this – and it is unlikely.
Regardless, supreme court seats do not belong to the robed figures sitting in them. They are not property to be inherited.
RBG has no power to bequest her seat.
I peel her res gestae off the bottom of my shoe and toss it in the garbage. who cares
“What about her wish to have the ‘Next’ President appoint a justice?”
What about it?
Tuff sh*t RBG. Her last act was to demonstrate how bad her judgment actually was by not stepping down when Obama pleaded with her to do it during his term. RBGs desire to hold on to her power and influence actually did her in. Now President Trump, the POTUS she openly and publicly loathed, will fill her vacant seat. Such poetic justice for Notorious RBGs final act: notoriously bad judgment.
Somehow, Turley, you lose credibility when you attack Democrats for something they might do, something that is possible well within the Constitution but support or ignore the stuff Republicans do. Let’s talk about hypocrisy and talking out of both sides of the mouth, McConnell, Turley, et al. Your blog is fast becoming just more pablum.
“ignore the stuff Republicans do. Let’s talk about hypocrisy and talking out of both sides of the mouth”
I just linked this for your fellow team member, Justice Holmes:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/11/poll-most-voters-in-swing-states-view-both-trump-and-biden-as-mentally-unfit/
“I have previously written (here and here) about the need to break the duopoly of power in this country by creating greater opportunity for other parties and candidates. Every presidential election, the voters are told that they have to chose between two candidates who garner little support in their own right. It is the continual replay of “choosing between evils” option for voters.”
You’re the hypocrite, Isaac.
Politicians are lying sleaze bags on both sides. Trying to referee that mess is a bit much. But when they discuss a fundamental change to our balance of powers, that’s quite another.
If you think this is a wise choice – then be open – say exactly what you are going to do, rather than Biden’s nonsense remarks.
Of course Biden taking a position would make it an issue – though it already is.
Voters are entitled to know what the candidates they might vote for are going to do if elected.
Trump provided a list of potential supreme court nominees and he stuck to that list – many people voted for him because of that list and even more will vote for him in 2020 because they have good reason to beleive him.
If Democrats beleive that the people of the country really want a more progressive court – then SAY SO! Then provide the likely nominees of a Biden presidency. Then commit to expanding the court or to leaving the court at 9. I do not care which – but be open to voters about where you stand and what you will do.
Absolutely that will make it and issue – though it already is.
Absolutely the constitution allows expanding the court. If you beleive that people are going to support doing that after the election – then be open about it now – it should earn you votes.
The only reason for this games menship is that you KNOW that people not merely do not support this that the STRONGLY oppose.
A constitutional convention is also well withing the Constitution.
The key issue is that democrats have gotten far ahead of the people as a whole. You rant about McConnell’s actions – but those actions are NOT disruptive. A more conservative court will NOT send the country to hell – and most of us grasp that.
I am libertarain not conservative – but one core aspect of conservativism is both true and not ideological and most people grasp it.
No matter how bad a system is that is currently inplace it is extremely unwise to trash it and do something new merely in the hopes it will be better.
The price to be paid for going slow is nearly always lower than that of going to fast.
A more conservative court is NOT a threat to the country – even if it makes many wrong decisions.
A more progressive one IS.
The left is worried that the appointment of ACB will result in a reversal of Rowe. I think that is unlikely.
I expect it will result in narrowing Rowe further – but there is massive public support for that.
Possibly 80% of the country would support an outright ban on abortions after 24 weeks with very few exceptions.
Rowe was a bizare compromise decision and actually a pretty bad one. Its legal foundations are crap and its scientific foundations are shifting sand. Advances in medical science allow severely limiting abortions based on EXACTLY the logic that was used to concoct Rowe’s 3 trimester scheme in the first place.
At the same time if Republicans – through the courts or otherwise take away all options form women they will face an incredible backlash themselves.
I would further note that narrowing Rowe will not likely have any consequential real world effect – women who today choose to abort after 24 weeks – not an especially large number, will still be free to do so before – and likely will. When you change deadlines people change their choices.
As to other issues: ACB is catholic and catholics oppose the death penalty. Through court has been slowly narrowing the death penalty as well as constraining heavy sentences for young offenders. That is unlikely to change.
Aside from Rowe what is the great change you fear a 6-3 court would bring ?
The death of Obama Care – it is already dead.
If you are going to rant about this – atleast make it clear what your actual goals are.