Ginsburg’s Nightmare: The Democratic Plan To Destroy The Supreme Court Of The United States

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.

194 thoughts on “Ginsburg’s Nightmare: The Democratic Plan To Destroy The Supreme Court Of The United States”

  1. Much earlier Jonathan Turley argued that the Supreme Court needs expanding to 17 or even 19 justices. I found those arguments persuasive. I suggest doing so by appointing 8 elderly people who will then soon leave the office. Say 2 each in the 5 year age groups beginning at 65.

  2. “It’s the [Lincoln], stupid!”

    – James Carville

    Lincoln destroyed the Supreme Court when he destroyed the Constitution. To act on his madness, Lincoln nullified the Constitution and favored the principles of the Communist Manifesto.

    “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

    – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837;view=fulltext

    Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich who had been imprisoned by German authorities…

    Marx and Lincoln were contemporaries:

    – Lincoln born: February 12, 1809
    – Marx born: May 5, 1818
    – Marx publishes a book about Emancipation: 1843
    – Marx expelled from France as a radical: 1845
    – Lincoln elected to US House: 1846
    – Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto: February 1848
    – Marx is a contributor to the New York Tribune (Lincoln’s favorite newspaper), 1851-1861
    – Lincoln runs for U.S. Senate vs. Douglas, famous Lincoln-Douglas debates occur: 1858
    – Lincoln becomes US President: 1860
    – Civil War Starts: 1861
    – Emancipation Proclamation: January 1, 1863

    – ISR

    1. communists viewed capitalism as a historical improvement over feudalism. marx wrote lincoln and congratulated him.

      lincoln was a big money corporate railroad lawyer before politics

      global financial interests continue the pressure on all nations today to “evolve” into the borderless world which Marx envisioned– because in that world nobody will stand in their way; not any national boundaries, nor national taxes, nor national impediments on the migration of labor, and ha ha, least of all on any “communism”

      in this Marx mispredicted the future.

      although the future is not yet written. it may be that once globalism crushes all other nations including the US., if it does, if we fail to protect our country’s sovereign prerogatives, then, one day, it will be a showdown between the CCP and the captains of global finance. yes, they are allies, for now. we have seen soros sucking up to the CCP honchos at “World Economic forum”

      but one day they will turn on each other. i predict that the CCP will reach out and touch them one by one and physically rectify them. and then in turn the CCP will be a global master.

      is all we have to chose from is a future in which the SOROS vision of a borderless world ruled by technocrats and financiers, versus, a world subject to the overweening power of a future PRC even bigger, scarier, and mightier than today?

      no– but the first step to not having to watch that play out, is re-elect the champion of American sovereignty, Donald J Trump. if this fails, then, it’s doubtful anyone will emerge who can accomplish what he did not. but if he does get elected, then maybe someone can wind their way up to bat, who can prepare to do the things, the dreadful things, that you;’ve talked about so much, the Lincoln did to win his civil war, and one day will be absolutely necessary again.

      make no mistake from 100 years ago until now, there has been one theme. globalism versus nationalism. it has played out in many different ways ,but right now, the globalism that was America’s engine of economic and strategic growth, is now a child of the revolution that is eating its parent alive. globalism was ironically born from US Wilsonian diplomatic strategy but now it has come to be the enemy of America itself and is exerting all its rootless cosmopolitan force against the people.

      1. Lincoln was the inflection point at which America commenced the nullification of the Constitution and the imposition of the principles of communism.

  3. schemers in Illinois dream up a confusing ballot to try and get their own chestnuts out of fire

    “Illinoisans voting on the “Fair Tax” constitutional amendment who have not already studied it probably will be duped into the wrong choice because the ballot is deceitful and incomplete.
    Moreover, it is not separate from a ballot for other matters as clearly required by the Illinois Constitution….”



    1. Schemers in Illinois dreamed up eliminating classes from society and imposing the other principles of communism as indicated by the Communist Manifesto and Marxists in Illinois fleeing prosecution in Germany.

      To wit,

      “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people…”

      – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

      “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

      – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

      “Unless, of course, we bother to examine the tattered copies of the American outlet for Marx’s revolutionary preachments during the period when Lincoln was preparing to leave the political wilderness and make his march to the presidency. That journal, the New York Tribune, was the most consistently influential of nineteenth-century American newspapers. Indeed, this was the newspaper that engineered the unexpected and in many ways counterintuitive delivery of the Republican nomination for president, in that most critical year of 1860, to an Illinoisan who just two years earlier had lost the competition for a home-state U.S. Senate seat…”

      – ISR

  4. Jonathan: It’s bizarre you would accuse Biden of wanting to “pack” the Supreme Court if he wins the election. It’s unlikely Biden would be preoccupied with the composition of the Court when he first is going to have to deal with the disaster Trump created by his gross negligence in handling the coronavirus pandemic. This will keep him busy for a long time. Trump and Mitch McConnel have “packed” the federal bench and the Supreme Court with conservative judges for almost 4 years. At the debate Trump falsely claimed the many vacancies he had to fill on the federal bench were all the fault of Obama. In fact, it was McConnell who refused to consider many of Obama’s choices and even refused to give Judge Garland the courtesy of a hearing. Trump and McConnell have their own “litmus test” for selecting nominees. They have to be conservative and support Trump’s agenda. Amy Coney Barrett fits the pattern. She is an extreme Catholic conservative who has clearly indicated that if given the opportunity she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s ludicrous to argue that Biden and the Democrats will have a “litmus test” for nominees to the Court but imply Trump and McConnell have not imposed their own. Barrett is the prime example of Trump’s own “power grab” and attempt to “pack” the Court with a 6-3 super majority of conservative justices to back him up if he challenges the results in any contested election results. This is the ultimate “power grab”.

    Now in the case of the ACA the majority of Americans support it. For the first time millions now have access to affordable health care–including protection for preexisting conditions and coverage for minor children until they are 21. But Trump wants his conservative majority on the Court to declare the ACA unconstitutional. Despite his claim that he has a plan for “better” health insurance neither Trump nor any Republican have put forward a definite replacement for the ACA. Your post implies Biden will win. It’s not a given. Trump’s campaign is working overtime to prevent voters from exercising their precious right to vote. Trump is so undemocratic it’s breathtaking. But If Biden does win there is an old adage: “To the winner go the spoils”. There is another saying: When politicians continue to ignore the will of the people they have been in office too long. On November 3rd we will find out whether voters agree.

    1. Here is another Democrat party cheerleader who claims without evidence that ” A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS PREFER _______________ ”

      the entire stinking belch of words was all a cover for that one hidden false premise— that whatever they want is per se a majority. that’s “the power of positive thinking” in action!

    2. First, apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup. Then and only then should we move on to your next disastrous, false allegation. We may even find a moment for this bs.

    3. “It’s unlikely Biden would be preoccupied with the composition of the Court when he first is going to have to deal with the disaster Trump created by his gross negligence in handling the coronavirus pandemic. ”

      What coronavirus pandemic? Was that the topic of discussion when Trump showed concern and wanted to restrict travel from China, and Nancy Pelosi said it was just Trump being racist, and to come out to the Chinatown New Year Celebration? That mess?? Is that what you are referring to?

    4. Maybe Joe Biden should just say, I will not pack the Supreme Court.

  5. It’s not hard to believe anymore, for Trump supporters being that proud, of being that delusional. It is what it is.

    1. “… of being that delusional.”

      Delusional is denying a real paper trail for your own twisted fantasies. But as long as it makes you feel good–the ultimate bottom line for Democrats now.

    2. Fishy used to have an open mind, but Fishy’s brains kept falling out. It is what it is.

    3. I was for the green new deal before I was against the green new deal.

  6. “Ginsburg’s Nightmare: The Democratic Plan To Destroy The Supreme Court Of The United States”

    – Professor Turley

    It is impossible to destroy that which was destroyed long ago.

    In fact, “…the democratic plan to destroy the [United States]…” was unleashed by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln in 1860. It has been all downhill ever since – the entire current American welfare state is illegitimate and unconstitutional. Lincoln had no authority to use military force to deny secession by states, to invade a sovereign foreign nation, to suspend Habeas Corpus, to confiscate private property or to force immediate mass, illegal immigration on America (Naturalization Act, 1802, allowed only “…free white person(s)…”), especially when compassionate repatriation was appropriate, for the benefit of slaves abducted from Africa and had been planned and funded for 150 years.

    In fact, republicans were liberals and democrats were conservatives before the ideological pole shift. Liberal Republican Lincoln nullified the Constitution to forcibly impose the abrogation of the right to private property, free speech, free press, free enterprise and free markets. Slavery must have been ended through legal, constitutional means such as advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc. Instead, General Secretary Lincoln seized and usurped the power of the legislative and judicial branches, and ruled as a dictator by executive order and proclamation. The democrat conservatives in the Confederate States of America must, by law, have been allowed to secede, to fail and, ultimately, to reunite with the, once again, United States.

    “[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

    It was a dubious prospect from the outset, keeping the restricted-vote republic. Lincoln decided that violating and overturning fundamental law, the Constitution, was the right course, which, of course, was wrong. Once the “Genie” was out of the bottle, there was no going back. The Tytler Principle described a life of ~200 years for one man, one vote democracy, which always ends in dictatorship. America no longer facilitates freedom and self-reliance. America is ruled by the communist “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The dictatorship of the covetous and parasitic takers.

    “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

    – Karl Marx

    America’s time is up.

  7. If the Democrats pack the court, it will not “destroy” it. (I don’t agree with the court packing plan, by the way.) But I doubt anyone really wants to bother with it. Putting more justices on the court would inherently give the Supreme Court more power and authority over the Legislative Branch–and I assure you Pelosi et. al. really don’t want that. Instead of 9 (or 5, in the event of a bare majority) unelected justices deciding things for the country, you’ll have 11 (at least 6) or 13 (at least 7.) It would also be a huge administrative headache and increase the budgetary needs of the Court. It’s not happening no matter what the crazy Dems threaten they’re going to do.

    1. not huge. they would have to add two salaries and what, another 30-40 support staff each. not very expensive

      but malthus is right that it might increase their reach, allow them to hear more cases which could broaden their reach

      Democrats need the POTUS to keep red states getting redder, in line. If they pack the court, Union breakup comes on to the slate after that. explicitly.

      The social divisions and regional differences of the USA are already a big strain and the diversity one day will cause an inflection point and after it does, we will wonder how it all kept together for so long, once it blows apart.

      There is the eastern grid, the western grid, and texas. power grid I mean. here’s one way the cookie could crumble.

  8. When are voters going to notice that quite often, Democrats are guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing?

    How often have we heard that Trump is a fascist dictator, etc?

    Yet, Democrats are willing to remove the Electoral College in the Constitution to ensure Republicans cannot win, will not acknowledge the Senate’s constitutional right to vote, or not vote, on a SCOTUS nominee, and plan to expand the court so they can stuff it with Liberals to legislate from the bench.

    It is intuitively obvious that if Trump had proposed doing this, Democrats would be howling tyranny.

    The Golden Rule still applies, in determining if you are doing right or wrong. If you would object if the other side did it, then it’s wrong.

    Conservatives believe in strong individual rights and limited government. This offers some protection against tyranny.

    Democrats believe in a strong central government, globalism over a country that reflects the views of its own people, all at the expense of individual rights. They promise to take care of everyone, only the government is a poor substitute for a father. This approach may lead to tyranny.

    Moderate Democrats and Independents:
    If you oppose defunding police, why do you vote for the party that defunds police? What do you think is going to happen?
    If you notice taxpayers and businesses leaving your Deep Blue States, taking jobs with them, why do you keep voting for the party that drives revenue away?
    If you don’t like Critical Race Theory, which teaches that white people are born guilty, and black people are born oppressed, therefore whites should be punished, why do you vote for this party?
    If you don’t like that homeless defecate and leave dirty needles all over the street in front of your business or house, why do you vote for the party that allows it?
    If you support a parent’s right to choose where to send their child to school, why do you vote for the party that opposes school choice?
    If you support gig workers, who sign on to an app to work when they want, why do you vote for the party that allowed unions to write a law that destroyed gig work during a pandemic?
    If you oppose racism, why do you vote for the party that normalized racist slurs against conservative blacks?

    The list is extensive.

    Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles & San Francisco of the Walking Dead Homeless Apocalypse, Detroit – at what point do you notice that Democrats keep promising to solve all your problems? Well, they’ve had total control for decades. How’ve they been doing? How are your prospects? Your neighborhood? At what point do you give the other party a shot at improving your neighborhood, your state, and your circumstances? At what point do you tire of schools turning out graduates who can’t read, where the hallways are dangerous?

    Why not try the party that will judge you on your character, not group you based on skin color? As if that’s all you are – you’re skin color!

    A lot of good people vote Democrat because they think it will take care of people. It’s policies have created more poverty and failure, and it doesn’t matter if they were well intentioned.

    1. First of all you cannot be a democrat or democratic at the same time as being socialist. The dialectics of the left won’t allow it and the two are 180 degree polar opposites. One calls for each citizen voting on everything while the other calls for citizens being told how to vote. the whole notion of a socialist democrat or vice versa is indefensible and a sham. Most Constitutional Democrats and Independent Democrats have left that party because they are not socialists. Some are working to start a real second party and some just laying low until voting day and then voting against this shameful sham of a foreign ideology

      On the other side the GOP has dumped two dozen RINOs and moved to clean up the act put in place by the RINOs Not bad for the the first four years of being led by a political outsider. The socialist progressive liberals to use their proper name has yet to offer any party plank, position, or direction nor offer any facts, sources or proofs against the deluge of false accusations. And it’s true they don’t take care of people as Pelosi is proving every day by blockading the issue of the Due Sep 1st stimulus checks and that directly affects her own party. Why she is socialist fascist they are the crumbs here and there meaningless little people and not important nor are their children. The only one holding up progress are the socialist regressives.

      They cannot claim to uphold the Constitution nor the Oath of Office when they work against it to replace it with this or that part of some manifesto and openly state they do not care about the Constitution and our Republic. A photo of that group with Pelosi and the others is sickening we migh as well name phase two of the current disease Pelosid. or Schumuck.

    2. When are voters going to notice that quite often, Democrats are guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing?

      Good post Karen. The answer is when the narrative is moved from whatever the most recent allegation the Democrats feel is true, to what the facts and evidence prove is true. Democrats have to this point controlled what people notice through the MSM and their Silicon Valley cohorts. I don’t see that changing, but the President, Republicans in the Senate and House and those in his administration like AG Barr should use every available option to direct the people’s attention to the crimes and abuse of power wielded upon this country by the last administration, the FBI/IC/DOJ. This should be sustained until the people notice.

    3. Amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College isn’t a fascist move. Just like amending the Constitution to give women the right to vote wasn’t a fascist move. The Founders wrote the amendment process into the Constitution, and they used it.

      1. You are overlooking the purpose for the amendment process. It’s designed to improve and make more secure the rights of all our citizens. How would eliminating the EC do that?

        1. It would allow the votes of Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states to matter. It would mean that all votes count equally, no matter where the person lives.

          1. “It would allow the votes of Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states to matter.”

            Or it would strengthen the great hive mind of the very densely populated portions of the coasts to enforce their collective notions on the rest of the country. Keep your holodomor to yourself.

            1. California has about 21 million registered voters. About 9.7 million are registered as Democrats, and over 5 million are registered Republicans, more than the entire voting population of several states. You can fool yourself about a “hive mind”. I won’t.

              1. Math isn’t my strong point, but I would say that adds up to be about twice as many Democrats as Repubs. Compare that with the NE, and it starts to trend above most of the population. But you don’t have to prove it to me anyway.

          2. Would you favor universal suffrage if you knew the larger the family, the more likely they would vote Red? Would you favor eliminating the EC if the majority of eligible voters voted Red? Of course you wouldn’t, and for good reason.

            Let’s look at our incubators of democracy… the states, which would give us the best predictor of what you propose. And the state that would be the best example is California. I’ve lived here for 41 years and the super-majority Democrats hold in this state exists because of the major metro areas. And because all votes count equally, conservatives are fleeing the insane policies being imposed by the progressive left. And if the progressives had their way, they’d eliminate prop 13 and finish driving conservatives out of this state. It’s the EC that still gives the people an option as to where to live in our country. Eliminating the EC would mean the insanity of California would soon become the insanity at the federal level. You would be inviting a hot civil war.

            1. If you’re going to ask me questions but then answer them yourself, you’re engaged in a monologue.

              1. First of all it’s good to know you have no objections to the answers. Secondly, my second paragraph (monologue) countered your monologue. You always have the option to provide a counter-argument. That’s how debates work.

                1. Anonymous is incompetent and couldn’t win a 10 point debate if he started with 9.

            2. “Eliminating the EC would mean the insanity of California would soon become the insanity at the federal level. You would be inviting a hot civil war.”

              if they eliminate the EC then that should be exactly the plan. The middle states which are disempowered to be evermore the slaves of the coasts, rebel
              default on national debt, establish a gold standard and above all, secure the nukes.
              let all the liberals move to the new coastal areas, and let the good people come to flyover. population transfer can make it a mostly peaceful process.

              this is not yet possible, but, genius trump letting the Democrats set fire to their own enclaves, advanced the prospects of this outcome, considerably.

              that and letting them do their stupid severe covid lockdowns, too

              one day we may thank him for standing back and letting it go. a long sighted act of federalism, ie, respecting the states’ own powers,

              right now it seems impossible, considering how the national elites in mass media, education, silicon valley are all Democrats hell bent on subjugating the entire country, but with a sufficiently organized financed and executed campaign of rectification, it would be possible

              1. a blockchain currency linked to gold or a basket of basic commodities would be a viable alternative for a post-US dollar nation.

                the world bank would of course collapse and so you can forget about the SDR coming into the gap.

                nations are already running pilot programs for blockchain based national currencies

                a seemingly unstable rump US middle America could possibly outflank the global money masters with the right setup

                now, let me say what other black swans might emerge to make it happen.

                covid-20: a global coronavirus that was actually of serious lethality, unlike the weak covid 19
                they could be cooking it up in a lab right now, more “gain of function” dual purpose experiments, crispr frankenstein stuff of homicidial intention at a scale never yet imagined

                understand the “global warming” scientific community says there are too many carbon emitting humans on earth right now to get to a steady state carbon neutral setup without major reductions in carbon production.

                how will they eliminate half the global population? get it down to size in time to stave off what they believe is going to be a massive disruption in world affairs anyhow?

                global pandemic of a singficant lethality. that’s even better than a nuclear exchange between pakistan and india, though, that would solve global warming with a big dust cloud that lowered temperatures, destroyed crop yields, and lead to massive starvation dieoff. but that seems like a little more dramatic than what the elites might desire.

                i say the next pandemic is going to be the big one


                  Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement
                  Corinne Le Quéré, Robert B. Jackson, Matthew W. Jones, Adam J. P. Smith, Sam Abernethy, Robbie M. Andrew, Anthony J. De-Gol, David R. Willis, Yuli Shan, Josep G. Canadell, Pierre Friedlingstein, Felix Creutzig & Glen P. Peters
                  Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages647–653(2020)Cite this article

                  Government policies during the COVID-19 pandemic have drastically altered patterns of energy demand around the world. Many international borders were closed and populations were confined to their homes, which reduced transport and changed consumption patterns. Here we compile government policies and activity data to estimate the decrease in CO2 emissions during forced confinements. Daily global CO2 emissions decreased by –17% (–11 to –25% for ±1σ) by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels, just under half from changes in surface transport. At their peak, emissions in individual countries decreased by –26% on average. The impact on 2020 annual emissions depends on the duration of the confinement, with a low estimate of –4% (–2 to –7%) if prepandemic conditions return by mid-June, and a high estimate of –7% (–3 to –13%) if some restrictions remain worldwide until the end of 2020. Government actions and economic incentives postcrisis will likely influence the global CO2 emissions path for decades.



          3. Anonymous you still haven’t learned the most significant thing about a democracy. It permits 51% to enslave the other 49%. You want a tyranny of the majority until they come after your head. Not too bright.

      2. Amending the Constitution would be legitimate. But what the democrats want to do is push it through by packing the court.

        Anonymous the Stupid, it is time for you to understand the amendment process and see how it differs from amending the Constitution through the Supreme Court.

        1. Allan the Stupid, Olly and I were discussing eliminating the EC, and one cannot eliminate the EC by court packing. What a jackass you are.

      3. It is arguably fascist in a certain sense. It would be a move to destroy America as a federal republic and replace it with a fundamentally centralized Napoleonic state

        This was one of the early criticisms of Hitler by the way– the emergency powers act which gave him authority also sublimated the federal perogatives of the German Lander (states)

        in april 33 nazi appointed supplanted all the Lander governors by edict

        this is precisely what can and will happen if the Democrats ever get a blue wave that gives them POTUS and both chambers of Congress

        they will enact all kinds of schemes already planned that will make them into a permanent majority party like in all the big cities. they will pack the court and SCOTUS will be tamed.
        and then after that there will only be internal party bickering and the elections will be as phony as those in the old USSR or Syria

        of course if that happens the USA will go the way of the USSR into devolved fragmentation or at least Syria– open civil war

    4. You keep repeating the same crap you heard on Fox, and it’s getting tiresome. No one has called Trump a fascist, but when he claims he won’t leave the White House he cheated to get into when he loses the election, he does sound like a dictator. The Electoral College no longer serves any purpose other than to cheat the American people out of their choice for POTUS. Russians found a way to manipulate the Electoral College, with the help of the Trump campaign, by lying to voters in certain key districts in certain states, so Putin’s choice would occupy the White House, despite losing the popular vote.

      As to the SCOTUS, you have a POTUS who cheated to get in the White House, who has failed to capture even a 50% approval rating, and Republicans who reversed their 2016 position on the propriety of whether a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS was proper in a presidential election year. The purpose of this change of position is to grab power by stuffing the SCOTUS with extreme conservatives whose views do not align with those of most Americans, whether or not is allowable. Most Americans do not want this nomination to go forward, and they don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned. Republicans don’t care.

      You talk about conservatives, as if you know anything about it. Trump is not a conservative. One main feature of being a conservative is individual integrity: no lying, no cheating, in personal life or in business, and fundamental honesty. Trump fails all of these, which is why there are multiple groups of Republicans actively fighting against him and why so many former Republican office-holders and military speak out against him. They do judge him on his character–which stinks.

      Just like being ignorant of what conservatives stand for, you are equally ignorant about what Democrats stand for. How many times does Joe Biden have to condemn violence and deny that he is in favor of defunding the police before people like you understand that Fox hosts are lying when they tell you these things? In fact, Kellyanne is on the record as saying that violence helps Trump. Your other claims about Democrats being racist are likewise untrue, and something you got from Fox.

      You know little to nothing about politics, the cause for economic woes in certain big cities, substance abuse or the other things you keep bloviating about. Republicans are the ones who own large corporations that have moved their operations to Mexico, China, Viet Nam and other countries, not Democrats, and the loss of blue-collar jobs in places like Detroit and other big cities, is the cause for many of the social problems, not Democrats. They also hold their money off-shore, and, like Trump, love it when they don’t have to pay their fair share of taxes.

      1. “…No one has called Trump a fascist…”

        Hahahahaha! I hate to inform you that your brain is generating its own filter.

        “…Russians found a way to manipulate the Electoral College, with the help of the Trump campaign…”

        It’s been proven beyond a very reasonable doubt that the FBI, with the help of Stephan Halper and Christopher Steele aided Clinton in a smear job on the Trump campaign from the get-go. I believe I shared these rumors that this smear operation was coming on this very blog on the day after the election. Even Gina won’t pull out the declassification folder from under her butt and give it up.

        “You keep repeating the same crap you heard on Fox, and it’s getting tiresome.”

        It’s sad that you can’t see that Fox is controlled opposition–that should be clear to everyone by now. Since the Democrats’ false narrative is becoming accepted history, Fox is being forced into moving from the strategy of appearing to be opposition to going on the attack. What else do you have to see. Enjoy your continuing delusions!

        Keep the laughs coming! Your statements in the face of plain reality are DJ-worthy.

        1. It is Trump disciples who are truly delusional. The entire American Intelligence community agree that Russians did help Trump cheat. They agree that the Trump campaign did provide Russian hackers with information on where they could manipulate voters in certain key precincts in certain states where support for HIllary Clinton was soft enough that their lies had a chance of working, which it did. In the real world, this is called cheating . Regardless of the “investigate the investigators” feces Republicans are trying to pull, nothing will change these critical facts.

          1. “The entire American Intelligence community agree that Russians did help Trump cheat.”

            Keep trying, but you can’t twist reality. If push comes to shove, you can say some Russian advertising is about as far as it goes. But keep telling yourself that. The documented evidence and the cash trail tell a different story.

            Enjoy the fruits of Matt Taibi’s work. It’s hard to be you, especially when this comes from a person who is NOT a Trump supporter.


          2. “The entire American Intelligence community agree that Russians did help Trump cheat.”

            That’s easily proven with a citation if it wasn’t a bald faced lie, Natacha.

            Which is why you provided nothing.

              1. “Try looking it up yourself. Dan Coats was forced out as head of American Intelligence because he wouldn’t lie about Russia helping Trump cheat”

                Dan Coats is out because he was instrumental in the conspiracy.

              2. And yet Since Coates left we have learned:

                That CIA director brennan briefed Obama and Comey on Russian intelligence that Clinton was colluding With Russia to frame Trump colluding with Russia,

                That numerous CIA analysts found that Putin favored Clinton not Trump and Brennan supressed this.

                That the infamous ICA was Not produced in the normal fashion and was not the results of all the intelligence agencies but was the product of a few people who do not normally perform this function who were hand picked by Brennan.

                That the ICA relied on the Steele Dossier.

                That the FBI found that Steele was an unreliable source likely being played by Russian agents in 2014.

                That the primary subsource worked fro the Democrat Think tank brookings.

                That the primary subsource was a national security risk and likely a russian agent.

                That Comey rejected the ICA conclusion that Russia favored Trump.

                In fact massive amounts of information not merely contradicting the ICA but exposing other unrelated malfeasance has been declasified and released since Coates departure.

                It seems pretty self evident that Coates was using his position to protect the IC from real scrutiny at the expense of exposing the fact that the ICA was garbage.

          3. Dont be so sure you will keep the “entire intelligence community” in your pocket forever

            one day many of the powers that be will tire of the stupidity and will rebel, covertly, or perhaps overtly–
            and then you will find out that your false beliefs were emptier than you had expected

  9. You don’t like where we are, professor, you might reflect on the legal academy’s role in bringing us here. No segment of American society bears more responsibility for the problems we face (apart from Congress and the appellate judiciary itself).

    I would wager RBG was concerned about the level of collegiality on the Court itself and maintaining the social fiction that it was (in contentious issues) something other than the SuperLegislature she herself wanted it to be. The bozos kept taking discretion away from elected officials (without warrant), then grew increasingly hysterical as the opposition made halting efforts to restore discretion to elected officials, and are now dropping the mask. If the Democrats pack the court, the Republicans would be perfectly justified in using the appropriations process to shut the court down and in passing legislation declaring a large mass of judicial precedents null and void. If you fancy that’s unconstitutional, it really is no more abusive than decisions like Roe v Wade or Obergefell.

    A working political society needs its referees. The courts have squandered the trust of the larger public over 80-odd years by ever more egregious refusals to remain referees. They’ve invited their own destruction.

    1. what? Congress, appellate judiciary, and law professors brought us here?

      actually all the major changes were preceeded by universities being taken over by Left/Frankfurt school, then establishing the desirability of certain strategic reorientations for society’ quick, to be implemented by Hollywood, mass media conditioning on one thing or another (“Look who’s coming to supper”)

      the ones who made those “ideas” get put into the cultural bloodstream via the mass media, were often global financial interests

      lawyers ever follow behind universities, media, and finance.

      if lawyers are ever on the cutting edge as in NAACP or ACLU it is because captains of FINANCE pays them to do their thing.

    1. That’s the most insightful and honest thing I’ve seen you post in quite a while.

      1. It’s a process. At some point you might actually learn to read words. Then with some effort, comprehension sets in. Keep at it.

      2. Most people pray Anonymous will resort to posting only a . or,

        That would be a vast improvement over its usual Stupidity.

Comments are closed.