Gallup Poll: Voters Do Not Support Claims Of A “Packed” Supreme Court

We have been discussing the recent talking point emerging from the Biden campaign and Democratic leaders on court packing. While continuing to refuse to state their position on packing the Supreme Court to create an ideological majority, various Democratic figures have been calling the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (and all of the Trump nominees) a form of court packing. A recent Gallup poll found only 32 percent of voters thought that the Supreme Court was dominated by conservatives.

This weekend, Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.)  on Fox News Sunday said that the Barrett nomination “constitutes court packing.” Both Biden and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Cal.) have also referred to nominating conservatives a court packing. Harris said in the debate that if you want “to talk about court packing . . . I have witnessed appointments for lifetime appointments to federal courts…People who are purely ideological, who have been reviewed and found to have been not competent, or substandard.”  Harris has previously said that she believes packing the Court is a worth considering.

The polls show that most Americans are against court packing. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 55 percent of Americans opposed any court packing plan and only 27 percent was in favor of the idea. The problem is that the Democratic base is more divided with some Democratic voters calling for extreme measures if the Democrats take over both Congress and the White House. Rather than irritate those voters, the Democrats are saying that voters will have to wait until after they elect Biden to know whether they are pack the Court.

However, in the Gallup poll, 42 percent of voters view the court as evenly split. Only 32 percent felt it was too conservative and 23 percent said it was too liberal. Those last two numbers reflect the same percentage at the extremes of our political debate of roughly 25 – 30 percent of voters. The rest of us are in the middle.

Notably, 58 percent of Democrats stated that the court has shifted too far to the right.  However, that leaves 42 percent even among Democrats who are not signing on with this packing narrative.

When asked if the Court is balanced ideologically, 48 percent of independents said that it was balanced.

The polling confirms the view that this narrative is tailored for the 25-30 percent of Democratic voters who are seeking extreme measures if they gain control of the Congress and the White House.  It also suggests a likely bait-and-switch in the making after the election.

127 thoughts on “Gallup Poll: Voters Do Not Support Claims Of A “Packed” Supreme Court”

  1. “Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) on Fox News Sunday said that the Barrett nomination ‘constitutes court packing.’”

    Sure. And lighting my fireplace constitutes “arson.”

  2. I would chose the intellect of Amy Coney Barrett over that of Judge Sullivan any day of the week. How much longer to we have to wait for Judge Sullivan? Appointing Judges in the class of Sullivan scare the living daylights out of me. Bet a National Poll would show people are tired of his bench warming attitude.

  3. Jonathan: Sure, pick and choose polls that fit the narrative–that if elected Biden and the Democrats will pack the court. So it is not surprising you would choose the Gallop poll that shows only 32% of voters think the Supreme Court is dominated by “conservatives”. However, I doubt many voters know much about the Court and its inner workings, e.g., “super-precedents”, stare decisis and the like. Few could name the Justices and fewer yet could say which are “conservative” and which are “liberal”. That’s the business of lawyers who practice before the court and academics like you.

    But this doesn’t mean voters aren’t concerned about what Trump has done to the courts. You also cite the Rasmussen poll that found that 55% of respondents oppose increasing the number of Justices. The number is actually 51% but we won’t quibble. What you neglected to mention is that in the same poll most voters support term limits for Justices. Why might this be? Because voters are increasingly concerned by Trump’s politicization of the courts–requiring appointees to the federal bench and the Supreme Court to pass a litmus test–they must share Trump’s reactionary agenda. You also neglect to mention that the Rasmussen poll is not “recent”. It was conducted in March 2019. With Trump’s nomination of Judge Barrett, the darling of the Federalist Society and right-wing conservatives everywhere, the Rasmussen poll numbers might be quite different today–especially because Trump wants a 6-3 super conservative majority on the Court to take away voters healthcare under the ACA, their right to choose an abortion and their voting rights. Most polls show a vast majority of Americans oppose Trump’s own attempt to pack the court right in the middle of an election. They believe the next President should fill the vacancy. They believe they should have a say in who is the next Justice. But Trump and the Republican Senate don’t care what the voters think. Trump knows his own poll numbers don’t look great so he is rushing to get Barrett’s nomination through the Senate before the November elections, That’s Trump’s version of “court packing”. He wants a conservative cushion, or “insurance policy” on the Court because he knows that if/when he becomes a private citizen again he will face any number of lawsuits over tax fraud, cases involving sexual harassment and assault as well as others that deal with his personal financial corruption while in office. Trump thinks with a super conservative majority on the Court he can beat the odds.

    So pick and choose your polls. I prefer mine.

    1. The Galup poll just came out a couple of days ago. Its not my poll its not your poll. A perfect example of a man chooses what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. I’ll give you this, not many people just come right out and say it. Just saw a clip on youtube. Joe Biden says that the FDR attempt to pack the court was a bone head move. Perhaps his head is more bony than FDRs.

      1. Turley suggests that their implication that they will pack the court, by not answering questions about it, is totally fake and in fact they will not. See the past para of Turley’s comment– “bait and switch” to deceive the 1/4 radical element of the Democratic party

    1. Barret claimed today that she was not advocating against Garland getting a hearing but only commenting on the situation as a neutral observer. What a crock od s..t DEmocrats should hit this interview harder. It won’t change anything except voters awareness of her hypocrisy and that of the GOP senators.

    2. well this won’t flip the balance of power so that does not apply

      “kristenclarkJD”– real lawyers do not put “JD” after their names. We all have the degree and if we are practicing lawyers nobody needs reminding of it

      usually it’s just people who went to law school and lack a license who put on airs like that. very lame

  4. “Both Biden and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Cal.) have also referred to nominating conservatives a court packing.”

    – Professor Turley

    It has been said in the media that Kamala Harris excels in cognitive, semantic and oral agility.

    San Francisco Mayor Willy Brown most certainly believed deeply in Kamala Harris.

  5. Republican Dirty Tricks In The News:

    Unofficial Drop Boxes Popping Up In California

    Secretary of State Alex Padilla said his office is coordinating with local elections officials to look into the reports.

    “Operating unofficial ballot drop boxes – especially those misrepresented as official drop boxes – is not just misleading to voters, it’s a violation of state law,” Padilla said, with a felony conviction carrying a prison sentence of two to four years.

    Reports came out Saturday night about a metal box in front of Freedom’s Way Baptist Church in Castaic that had a sign matching the one on the Orange County box. The church posted on social media that the box was “approved and brought by the GOP.” The post said church officials don’t have a key to the box and that GOP officials picks up the ballots. A pastor for the church didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    On its website, the Fresno County Republican Party also shared a list of “secure” ballot collection locations. None are official county drop box sites, with the local GOP instead listing its own headquarters, multiple gun shops and other local businesses.

    The California Republican Party did not respond to requests for comment about the boxes by deadline. But they’ve been defending the practice in replies on Twitter, alleging the process was made legal under a 2016 law that allows California voters to designate a person to return their ballot for them. The GOP calls the practice “ballot harvesting” and blames it for losses to the Democrats in OC and other places in 2018.

    But state officials clarified that using an unauthorized vote-by-mail drop box would not meet the requirements of the 2016 law. No designated “person” would be signing for the ballots as required by state law.

    Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley said Sunday that hundreds of people alerted him to the possible rogue drop box. Some had also sent the same message to the state Attorney General and FBI.

    District Attorney’s spokeswoman Kimberly Edds said Spitzer’s office is investigating, but she declined to say where or how many there were or who had placed them.

    Edited From: “Unofficial Ballot Drop Boxes Popping Up Throughout The State Worry Election Officials”

    The Orange County Register, 10/12/20


      This is a big story in California today. Republicans are deliberately undermining faith in the state’s official drop boxes. What’s more, Republicans aren’t backing off on this; they’re actually doubling-down instead! Like, “Yeah, we’re trying to confuse the public”. This morning I heard an NPR interview with a Republican state official who was totally unapologetic.

  6. When republicans thought Hillary would win in 16, there was talk that they would reduce the size of the court to 8. But being the hypocrites they are, now they don’t remember. Since Nixon in 69 Democrats have appointed 4, republicans have appointed 15. republicans have made every attempt to “pack” the courts by not allowing hearings, or blocking other posts, for Democrat POTUS, Clinton and Obama. Then ram thru with theirs. Four of the current justices have been appointed by POTUS who have lost the popular vote. Does not look like democracy in action, then again who said the republicans want any thing to do with America’s democracy with their all out support for the Dear Leader.

    1. “Does not look like democracy in action”

      That is because the US is not a “Democracy”, it is a Republic. Which is why the word “Democracy” is not in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. Whereas “Republic”, is in the Constitution.

      The Founders went out of their way to make sure that the US would never be subject to the tyranny of a majority. That’s because tyranny is till tyranny, whether that tyranny comes from a monarchy or a pure Democracy, doesn’t matter.

      This Democracy crap is just another symptom of the severe PTS combined with the piss poor government education system that you, Commit, Joe Friday, etc., all suffer from.

      It is also why all of you are bigots who use black Americans to further your political ambitions at the expense of black Americans.

        1. Rhodes incorrectly claims that a republic is not a form of democracy, which it is, and his intent seems to be to imply that the EC serves some safeguard against rash mob decisions by American voters. Given that delegates only rarely vote against the candidate the laws of their state assign them to, perhaps he can explain to us how these winner take all delegations are a step removed from the heat of the campaign and a chance for cooler heads to prevail.

          I’m all ears.

          1. Joe still can’t get his pinhead around the difference between a pure Democracy and a Democratic-Republic.

            See: “tyranny of the majority” in my previous post.

            Believe it or not, Joe, the Founders were far more intelligent and prescient than you. Which is why they established the EC in order to avoid allowing people like you to establish a totalitarian state.

            1. Waiting for your response Rhodes. How specifically does the EC temper with reflection the pure democracy of the popular vote?



    Republicans cast “court-packing” as a radical change that would politicize the court, while many Democrats counter that it’s a proportionate response to GOP refusals to confirm President Barack Obama’s federal court picks, particularly his Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Biden himself hasn’t been eager to discuss the issue but recently said he’s “not a fan” of court-packing. Either way, the issue takes center stage in the midst of confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose selection would cement a 6 to 3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court.

    Marin Levy, a law professor at Duke University, says there’s important context missing from the discussion: the recent partisan attempts to pack state supreme courts.

    In a study published earlier this year, well before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Levy documented court-packing attempts in at least 11 states in recent years. Most of those efforts were initiated by Republicans, including the two that succeeded. Moreover, compared to earlier decades court-packing attempts are now more common and more explicitly partisan.

    “The norm against court packing might be more vulnerable than some have thought — at least as it concerns the state courts,” Levy wrote. “If court packing and unpacking were considered strictly verboten, one would not expect to see over twenty different bills to pack and unpack the highest court in eleven different states.”

    Here’s a state-by-state rundown of the court-packing attempts Levy documented.

    Arizona: Republicans successfully expanded the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices, over the objections of the chief justice, in 2016. Two new justices were chosen by the state’s Republican governor shortly thereafter. The bill’s GOP sponsor directly acknowledged the partisan concerns driving the effort, saying “if there were different person appointing [the justices], I might feel less comfortable.”

    Georgia: Georgia Republicans pushed a successful court-packing bill through the legislature in 2016, allowing Republican Gov. Nathan Deal to add two justices to the seven-member court. Deal’s lawyer told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he hoped the more conservative court would issue rulings that were more favorable to businesses.

    Florida: Other Republican court-packing attempts stumbled. In 2007, Florida Republicans attempted to more than double the size of the court, from seven to 15 justices, because they were upset over a ruling that found the state’s school voucher system unconstitutional. In 2011 they proposed splitting the high court in two, adding three justices along the way. The change would have left “the [court’s] Republican-friendly justices as the ultimate arbiter of all the borderline constitutional civil matters,” as the Palm Beach Post put it at the time. That effort also failed to make it out of the legislature.

    Iowa: The state Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling striking down the same-sex marriage ban similarly inspired Republicans in the legislature to attempt to pack two more justices into the court. That bill died in committee, in part because Democrats controlled the legislature and the governor’s mansion at the time.

    South Carolina: Every legislative session from 1995 to 2010, South Carolina Democratic Sen. Robert Ford introduced a bill to expand the state’s highest court from five to seven justices. Those efforts all failed. A Republican picked up the mantle in 2013 and was similarly unsuccessful.

    Louisiana: In 2017, a Louisiana Democrat introduced legislation that would have added two new justices, most likely Democratic-leaning ones, bringing the total to nine. That legislation went nowhere.

    Montana: Lawmakers have also attempted to unpack courts, by reducing the number of justices. One such effort was led by Montana Republicans in 2011, which would have eliminated the positions held by two of that court’s most liberal members. The bill’s supporters were frank about their partisan motivations and it ultimately died in committee.

    Oklahoma: In 2017, a Republican who had previously threatened to set himself on fire in response to some court rulings on abortion introduced a bill to shrink the court from nine to five members. At the time, most of the court’s justices had been appointed by Democratic governors. The effort failed.

    Edited from: “GOP Has Been Aggressively Trying To Pack Supreme Courts At State Level, Study Says”

    From Today’s Washington Post


      Washington: In 2013, in what Levy calls “a particularly dramatic interbranch display of hostility,” Washington Republicans introduced a bill to remove four members from the state’s nine-member Supreme Court, immediately following the court’s overturning of Republican-imposed restrictions on tax hikes. The Brennan Center for Justice characterized the proposal as a threat to judicial independence. Levy notes that while the bill failed, Republicans have periodically attempted to revive it in recent years.

      Alabama: In 2009, “Democratic Senate Majority Leader Zeb Little introduced a bill to reduce the state Supreme Court from nine justices to seven, by attrition,” Levy writes. Nearly all of the court’s members were Republican and reducing the number of justices would not have changed the partisan balance, leaving the motivations behind the legislation unclear. The bill was not passed.

      Pennsylvania: In 2014, state Republicans considered a proposal to reduce the size of the court as part of a larger package that also would have eliminated the office of the lieutenant governor and shrunk the general assembly. It had bipartisan support — a rarity among these cases — but was ultimately not taken up.

      The through-line in nearly all these cases, Levy writes, is “that various elected officials pushed for changes to their state Supreme Court when doing so was in their political interest.” In most cases, the court’s ideological balance was at stake: “the proposed attempts to alter the courts were often done in ways that would guarantee adding justices from a political party to shift the ideological makeup of the court in a considerable way,” Levy wrote.

      That recent history is difficult to square with Republican attempts to cast a potential Democratic effort to pack the U.S. Supreme Court as a judicial intervention without modern precedent. Such a Democratic effort would be unusual in that in recent years, Republicans have been more enthusiastic about court-packing (and court-shrinking) at the state level.

      Shifting the ideological balance of a court in such a way is an example of “constitutional hardball” — when political actors bust norms and exploit rules in ways that aren’t specifically prohibited by the Constitution, but which are nonetheless unusual. Extreme gerrymandering is another example of this, as is the routine use of the filibuster in the Senate.

      Many scholars believe that, at the federal level at least, Republicans have been playing this game harder than Democrats. “Since at least the mid-1990s, Republican office­holders have been more likely than their Democratic counterparts to push the constitutional envelope, straining unwritten norms of governance or disrupting established constitutional understandings,” as Joseph Fishkin and David E. Pozen write in the Columbia Law Review.

      If Democrats capture the presidency and the Senate this year, leaders in the party will have to choose whether they’re willing to play hardball with the Supreme Court.

      Edited from: “GOP Has Been Aggressively Trying To Pack Supreme Courts At State Level, Study Says

      Today’s Washington Post

        1. It sure does, now we have the most corrupt and incompetent POTUS in our nation’s history.

          1. Translation: Fish didn’t get his Hillary participation trophy, and he is incapable of getting over it, because he was spoiled rotten.

            How many wars were started under Democrat Presidents, Fish?

            The reason I ask that question is because war is the single largest indicator of a corrupt Presidency.

        2. No they don’t. The Democrats have won 6 of the last 7 presidential elections and yet we are about to have a court where 5 of the justices were appointed by the loser.

          1. To joefriday. You stated that Democrats have won 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections. Chech out Wikipedia. Reagan 2, Bush 1, Clinton 2, Bush 2, Obama 2, Trump 1. Totals equal Democrat 4. Republican 6. This is out of the last nine elections. If you get stuff like this wrong how are people going to trust your other statements.

            1. Thinkitthrough: The democrats won 6 of the last 7 elections. The GOP won the non-representational winner take all EC vote in 3 of those elections. Winnertakell EC delegations are not in the constitution.

              1. Joe Friday intentionally misstates the truth. You would be true if you said the popular vote but you did not because you intend to deceive the readers.

                The Electoral College is a wise, lawful, and cherished institution and can only be abolished by amending the Constitution.

                1. The EC is not designed to somehow deny popular will, but that is what it has done in 2 of the last 5 elections (and 1 of the remaining 3 would have had a Democratic incumbent) and primarily because of winner-take all state delegations. That is neither in the constitution nor part of the original systems, but merely an unplanned side effect of states trying to maximize their individual clout – and to the disadvantage of representative out comes. It has nothing to do with representative reflection, one step away from pure democracy. Quit pretending it does just because your team benefited. We all know that in the unlikely event that the GOP wins the popular vote AND loses the EC, your head will explode.

                  1. on the contrary joe i would recognize the truth that the EC determines the outcome not the popular vote. my head would not explode.

                2. The EC is not wise, Kurtz.

                  It’s a holdover from slavery and represented a belief that the average voter should not be trusted.

                  It means that votes do not count equally across states, which is anathema to the notion of equality under the law.

                  We’ll see whether enough states sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and whether that’s upheld as constitutional. Do you have an argument for that being unconstitutional? It’s an alternative to a constitutional amendment.

                  1. You address the Electoral college but you do not address the creation of the Senate with two Senators from each state both with high populations and low populations. Why was the Senate formed in such a way. Was it also about slavery. It was demanded by the smaller states so that their interests would be considered. This is getting to the point that you can say anything. I learned this basic history about the formation of the nation in10th grade history class. When you twist common kmowledge to your point of view honest discussion has nothing to do with it.

            2. a) Learn to count. The last seven elections: 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016. That doesn’t include Reagan or Bush 1. If you get stuff like this wrong how are people going to trust your other statements.
              b) joe friday is clearly talking about the popular vote.

              1. To Anonymous. Clinton 2, Bush 2, Obama 2 trump 1. Total = 7. The Electoral College began in 1788. Elections have been decided by this mechanism since then. The reason that it was put in place was to protect the small states from the large states. Just think if we didn’t have it. The interest of the largely populated states would be made dominant over the much different interest of the lesser populated states. The founding fathers had seen the folly of pure democracies in history. They became factioned states and they failed. Do you think that the checks and balances that the founders placed in our original make up were just put there on a whim? Just because you don’t understand the validity of the Electrol college, you opinion does not make it invalid. Are you also calling for the elimination of the Senate. The Senate was also constucted so that the smaller states would have their say. We are not The United States of the 6 most populated states. We are The United States of America. The founders assured that the interest of all the states, big and small would be allowed. They did so because they knew that if they did not another revolution wound be soon at hand. Your solution would be to form a nation controlled by the 6 or so most populist states. Your best move then would be to form a coalition existing of those states and secede from the Union. This is realy the only final destination of your intellectual endeavor. An understanding of failed world governments, democratic, and autocratic would be a worthwhile endeavor. I can see that you find the government debate fascinating. I think you would enjoy studying the faults and successes in the history of world nations.

                1. Yes Think well said but you understand that is precisely what Democrats want. US governed by the whims of 6 biggest states

                  It will never happen, it will come to blows first. Let them try and Amend the constitution and make it happen- they could not do that either

                  They think they can slip this one through a packed SCOTUS. that’s the end game. pack it, then green light a termination of the EC by some legal bs.

                  we will never submit

                2. The current winnertakeall EC does not protect small states, If you think so, tell us how. This system now results in losers winning, candidates ignoring all but maybe 10 states, and millions of voters in places like California and Texas having no effect on the election. You are defending it based on a principle it doesn’t exhibit, and in defense of your winning presidencies you didn’t earn. In the unlikely event that the GOP wins the popular vote for president AND loses the election you’ll figure it out,

                  1. North Dakota and thinly populated states will be disenfranchised by the ever growing megapolises of NY and CA and a few others. If we had a system that was more directly proportionate it would wipe out ND and SD and Montana and numerous many other states for significance in the POTUS. At some point it would be like saying you need not even bother to vote


                    that’s where you guys want it to end up, it’s clear. dont be fake.

                    In the end this all comes down to one favorite Democratic ploy for power, one that you all dearly hope to soon resume. Flooding this country with migrants and you anticipate a certain number will eventually be naturalized and them and their children will vote 90-% Democratic party.

                    This has been a long standing trick in American politics in nearly every generation except between 1924 and 1965,

                    The main reason that the rank and file Democrat hates Trump, he stemmed the tide of migration which ever and always dilutes and weakens the political power of NATIVES. And ever and always, that most of all means, NATIVE BORN TAX SLAVES.

                    Whatever bogus slogans or fake ideals you guys have, don’t waste them on me. I know what my interests are socially and politically and economically and I am completely, totally, wholly unafraid to think and act on them. In this way Im like a Democrat, because I lost that “lying, timid morality” that stopped me from reckoning my own personal interests long ago.

                    Most Republicans are still held back by their own sense of restraint. Well, keep up the pressure, every day you are making more KURTZES out there with all the shenanigans, the riots, the shaming, the firings, the denunciations, the attacks on all forms of social identity and tradition. Keep it up! Why stop now?

                    See the curious thing is just why so many natives out there, are still dumb enough to think that the Democratic party represents their interests. They don’t. They will swamp you if they can, they will form up against you, they will reckon you and me alike, no matter what your pretty words, and you will be like a cuckoo raising their children at your own expense. And they are very expensive indeed


                    1. That’s false. No one is trying to change the number of EC votes each state has. The change should be to have them distributed by the number of votes within the state as Maine and Nebraska currently do.

                    2. Oh and by the way. I do understand why some native born Americans are still out there mouthing the Democratic slogans and platitudes and mantras and talking points day after day when the Democratic party leadership so clearly has betrayed our interests as a group.

                      It’s because some of them think that their PATRONAGE networks will pay them more than the negative externalities of all the usual anti-native humbug will cost them. and all that anti-white krap too. They see an angle in it even if they are native born whites– because maybe they DO have an angle!
                      oftentimes yes there are pecuniary opportunities to be had. A job in city government, an appointment, you name it. Democrats are CHAMPS of teamwork and self enrichment.

                      This is something Republicans could fix if they had their big blockheads screwed on right. They need to be able to deliver benefits to the own team and not just act like everyone is a silkstocking cuntry clubber who can just go off and play golf whenever. Trump gets that, even though he’s a rich guy, he gets it, people need jobs, they need money, they need economic growth, and he put in place big policies too goose growth and it did.
                      Then, the COVID ’emerged from nature” in China with perfect timing to scotch the economic progress right in time for the election year

                      How lucky for Democrats. Oh, can’t imagine they would want ruin to descend upon the country for their own advantage? Why not? They let ANTIFA run wild burning and looting in so many cities for so long, when they could have stopped it. Yes, they welcome both COVID and the CRIME and CHAOS.

                      Because “Get Trump”

                      Anti-American, corrupt scheming Democratic party leadership, the most cynical politicians in American history.

                    3. Kurtz, your claim that “North Dakota and thinly populated states will be disenfranchised by the ever growing megapolises of NY and CA and a few others” is total nonsense. The votes of voters would still count; no one would be disenfranchised.

                      All that would happen is that the vote of a voter in ND would count the same amount as the vote of a voter in CA. Equality under the law. You apparently don’t want that. You want the vote of a voter in ND to count **more** than the vote of a voter in CA. The votes of rural voters would still matter, as ~1/6 of all Americans live in rural counties, and no intelligent candidate would simply ignore 1/6 of the electorate.

                    4. ” You want the vote of a voter in ND to count **more** than the vote of a voter in CA.”

                      They do and there is good reason for it. Otherwise flyover will be dominated ever more by massive urban populations that will milk us for taxes like cows

                      I could care less if the supposed outcome is not “equal”

                    5. “No one is trying to change the number of EC votes each state has. The change should be to have them distributed by the number of votes within the state as Maine and Nebraska currently do.”

                      Let Maine and Nebraska do as they like and we will do as we like in other flyover states. That’s the system. You want to change, amend the constitution or go get the state legislatures to adopt whatever Maine and Nebraska have, assuming you are correct. You may well be, I am not up on such details, but if they do it does not offend me.

                      It does offend me that you precisely intend for a change in the EC system to allow for massive coastal populations to dominate us in the middle states. We will never submit to this. You can pack another 20 million migrants into your big cities like LA and NYC and naturalize them all overnight if you think you can get it done, and we will not be moved.

                    6. Kurtz admits he has no principled reason to support the EC as it currently operates and is only interested in maintaining maximum if unequal power for his team. Thanks for the honesty and now GFY. Your opinion is duly noted and discarded by serious people interested who do have principles.

                  2. “Kurtz, your claim that “North Dakota and thinly populated states will be disenfranchised by the ever growing megapolises of NY and CA and a few others” is total nonsense. The votes of voters would still count; no one would be disenfranchised.”

                    I realize you are advocating a political change that you like. I realize that you are smart and can do math.. Therefore I know you understand what ‘voting dilution” is and it is precisely what you intend to accomplish which is a result that is muted by the current EC setup

                    Now under the VRA “vote dilution” is a bad thing. Guess what. I am applying the concept outside the VRA to our flyover votes versus all the megapolis votes and the ongoing plan to dilute the legacy American population by adding tens of millions of migrant votes. Which as been the Democrat plan ever since the Immigrant Reform act of 1965


                    see the danger of educating white people in “civil rights” concepts is that we turn around and start using these concepts to protect our own political interests

                    well after decades of browbeating us, that effect is now well underway. get ready for more of what was used on us, to be used by us, to protect ourselves


                    and it won’t just benefit white folks either. we have new allies all the time, other diverse national and racial elements, who are people of good will that seek a just and ordered society where individual merits can be recognized and not crammed down by political bullies

                3. Thinkitthrough: You say “The reason that [the EC] was put in place was to protect the small states from the large states”

                  Earlier today you said: “Please tell us your source. Honest discussion requires a source. Tell us your source so we can check it out. … without a source your argument is mute [sic]”

                  So what is the source of your misunderstanding for the reason the EC was created?

                  Why didn’t you learn in school that the EC was created to protect the interests of slave-owning states, not “to protect the small states from the large states”?

          2. The Democrats have won 6 of the last 7 presidential elections and yet we are about to have a court where 5 of the justices were appointed by the loser.

            bythebook, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton did not nominate any justices to SCOTUS. Prove me wrong.

      1. You have given good examples of both parties trying to pack their state courts for political purposes. BRAVO! However I am waiting for the following “A pox on all their houses”.

    2. It doesn’t occur to you that state appellate courts are (1) commonly subject to retention-in-office referenda and (2) do not control their caseload. Even New York, a state with a lot of litigation, compels its terminal court of appeals to hear certain sorts of cases. There have been over the years various means of attempting to adjust to this, among them expanding the number of justices and creating temporary appellate panels to clear backlogs.

  8. and of that 32 percent all but two percent were registered socialists andand 2 percent were paid by Soros.

  9. Considering the size of the Supreme Court has changed over the years all this talk of “court packing” is just political blather by people who seem to think that getting the courts filled with conservative or liberal judges is somehow a way to get what the Executive and Legislative branches of the government have failed to do by the means provided to them under the Constitution. Instead of worrying about court packing, perhaps we would all be better served if we demanded that the Executive and Legislative branches truly reflected the will of the American people who elected them by passing legislation that reflects that will.

    1. The size of the court has been the same for 150 years. Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed packing the court in her NPR interview with Nina Totenberg on July 24, 2019. So many who post here are greater in wisdom than the late great Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    2. “Instead of worrying about court packing, perhaps we would all be better served if we demanded that the Executive and Legislative branches truly reflected the will of the American people who elected them by passing legislation that reflects that will.”

      The issue is the swing voters not caring about politics except on election day. Only 30% of eligible voters, evenly divided by party in 2016 took the time to vote. And in most cases, this 30% are the more energized, politically positioned voters to the right or left that give us individuals that do not represent the will of the American people, they represent the will of the primary voter. Over the years, candidates in all levels of government no longer represent left or right of center, they represent a much more divided position, so there are few left like Bush 41 or Bill Clinton who were able to work with congress to represent the American people.

  10. You tell us that the Republicans have commited immoral acts concerning the courts and then you tell us Democrats should commit the same immoral acts in response. See, that guy over there commited a sin so I should be allowed to commit the same sin too. C’mon man, just tell us where you stand Joe. All the surrogates are saying it’s ok to pack the court but Joe won’t take the leadership on the issue. Be a leader Joe and show us that you are the backbone of your party. Are you on cocaine. Are you a junkie. Just say it! Just say it already!

  11. These polls are asking people to offer an idle opinion on something they know nothing about; why comment?

    1. it shows how feckless the Democrat talking points are now. and confirms that 1/3 will always detect the politically correct answer their Democratic masters command them

  12. Two words for you professor, Merrick Garland. The Republicans blocked his nomination. Wouldn’t even allow a hearing. Lindsey Graham told us even if we have a Republican President, I won’t allow the appointment of Justice in an election year; use my words against me! Republicans….hypocrites.

    1. Blocking the nomination by a President of the opposing party is common practice. You’ll have to show me a link to that Graham comment, otherwise I don’t believe it.

    2. Indeed Holmes, and Barrett was with them on opposing Garland because it would “flip” the court. She’s an even bigger hypocrite because she plays like she’s not political but is obviously on the team when the chips are down.

      This is pure power politics and there are no principles involved Turley, so knock off with the charade..

      1. There is nothing inherently wrong with Republicans using the legal powers conferred to them under the Constitution to nominate and confirm this Justice.

        The fake news trying to convert this event into something sinister is a pathetic lie.

        You may not like it, it may not be to your advantage., but it is fully lawful and proper in form and procedure.

        1. Kurtz, the GOP stole a SC seat which would have meant a liberal court majority for the last 4 years by ignoring their constitutional duty to advise and consent. That is not an option, but a duty and responsibility. This pick by a loser about to be kicked out of office is legal but unjust and only proof that principles no longer apply. This is about power and politics and so a politicized hearing is what we’ll get and let the show begin. Since Barrett justified the Garland rip-off, she should be made to eat her words by every democratic senator who questions her. Shes a hypocrite.

    3. Yup. He said it. He was wrong then and he’s right now. It will be up to the voters in South Carolina to determine if they want the Lindsey Graham that got it right or not.

    4. Lindsey Graham actually said that the new GOP senate judiciary committee “rule” consensus is that they will not have hearings on a SCOTUS replacement by a lame duck president but Graham added that if it were up to him he would also make the rule for the end of any term. So close, but as usual, wrong facts, Justice Holmes.

  13. What is your point? Polls show that Americans do not support filling the seat before the election and you are strongly in support of that. Do polls matter to you or not?

    1. You are a person of unjust disposition and should not get your way in any venue.

      1. Molly is actually just a flake who flakes off one or two foolish remarks here near daily now. Let her make complete thought and then we can eviscerate it.

        1. Many of the commentators here are just insane right wing trolls. I generally do not like to engage with them. But I do like to point out when JT is nuts (or when he is right). JT is a partisan, even if he denies it.

    2. The polls actually show that some Americans support waiting until after the election. The poll on sept 25 showed a gap of 20 points. The poll one day ago showed 52% for waiting and 44% for going ahead. The gap is narrowing. However, The most important poll was take on the election days. Electing Donald Trump and twice giving power to Republicans in the Senate. There are polls and then there are POLLS.

      1. Thinkitthroug, Trump – like W – lost the poll on election day but was rescued by the EC and it’s BS winner-take-all state outcomes.

        There never was a popular mandate for Trump or W and their opinions and policies are and were minority opinions and policies. We now have a SC where 4 seats are held by justices appointed by the election loser, and one seat was stolen from a guy who won the popular vote twice. Soon we will have a court with 5 of the 9 seats held by representatives of the election losers, which helps explain why the court is out of step with the American people and is illegitimate. This charade going on today has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with power politics by the minority party trying to cement it’s dwindling support.

        1. Electoral college is BS? It’s actually a profoundly wise means by which our republic has elected all the Presidents.

          If you don’t like it you will have to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution because otherwise it’s here to stay for the duration.

          Convene a Constitutional convention if you dare and you may see other changes you will not like

          1. KUrtz, step up your reading comprehension or quit pretending you are so afflicted. I said winner-take-all EC is BS and it is. It’s not in the constitution, was not how it was originally done, was adapted by states as a way to maximize their individual impact, and renders close to half the voters in any election powerless and without a voice. Candidates ignore all but maybe 10 states, and we get stuck with losers like Trump and W.

              1. Jim, maybe you missed that both Clinton and Obama won election by a popular vote twice. American voters wanted them to run the country and to pick SC justices. W and Trump are both losers appointed by our f..ed up winner take all EC system and American voters did not want them in office or picking SC justices.

          2. The EC is not wise, Kurtz.

            It’s a holdover from slavery and represented a belief that the average voter should not be trusted.

            It means that votes do not count equally across states, which is anathema to the notion of equality under the law.

            We’ll see whether enough states sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and whether that’s upheld as constitutional. Do you have an argument for that being unconstitutional?

            1. i havent studied it. I was entirely ignorant about it.

              I’ll have to look into that. the map shows the geographic dimensions of this conflict however. perhaps some day that will be one part of a rump United States.
              Or vice versa.

              Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You’re really pumping out relevant stuff to consider now CTHD. Wow, Turley blog comments area is a great forum.


        2. The Democracts didn’t like the Filibuster. Just think what would be happening now with Justice Barrett if the Filibuster were in place today. One day they will wish that the Electoral College was still in place when it would have gone in their direction. If the Democrats regain power they will change the rules to reinstate the Filibuster. Remember when you were a kid and one of the other kids kept changing the rules of the game. He never could figure out why the other kids stopped playing whenever he came around. Some of the posters herein were that kid.

    3. Do polls matter to you or not?

      They only matter to partisan politicians willing to subordinate the constitution to the will of the people.

    4. “Polls show that Americans do not support filling the seat before the election”

      Pollsters and their polls do not have any legislative standing.

      You live in a partisan dream world, and you have severe PTS.

  14. Once again, democrats hijack the language because they can better control their bleating base by using Orwellian Newspeak. Even in Democrat Crazy Land it isn’t illegal for the sitting POTUS to appoint a SCOTUS justice, is it?! LOL! I mean beside the fact that it’s actually the president’s job! Dems…you can’t make it up…

    1. It was President Obama’s job to appoint judges to the DC Circuit, but Republicans called it “court-packing.” Don’t blame Democrats for highjacking the language. They’re just following Republicans’ lead.

      1. Maybe they did. Please tell us your source. Honest discussion requires a source. Tell us your source so we can check it out. If your statement is proven to be correct we will all be thankful that we have been enlightened. We will admit credence to your argument. However, without a source your argument is mute.

        1. I provided sources in my 8:58a.m. comment.

          If you believe that “Honest discussion requires a source. … without a source your argument is mute [sic],” then abide by your own standard.

          1. I checked out your source of the National Review 2013/11. This story was about elimanating the requirement of 60 votes in the Senate to confirm an appellate court justice. The Democrats changed the longstanding rule called the filibuster to fill the open seats on the court. They controlled the Senate but they could not get enough votes so they changed the rules. I think this action could rightly be interpreted to changing the rules in order to pack the court. Then the Republicans changed the rules in the same way for the Supreme Court. It was all about the right now. For the Democrats to think that their actions wouldn’t come back to bite them was short sighted to say the least. Joe Biden has made statements against packing the court. Thank you for using a source that proves my point.

            1. Thinkitthrough, filling vacancies blocked by a minority party which set all records for filibusters and ultimately kept over 100 appellate seats open and stole a SC seat is not court packing. You want packing? The Garland/Barrett hypocricy and Garland failure of constitutional duties was worth 2 seats and a liberal court majority over the last 4 years.

              1. So what? Are you trying to tell me that the Democrats never took advantage of the filibuster rule. In one of your previous posts you titled it “Republcans Pack the Courts” yet in the body of the post you listed packing attempts by both parties. The honest title should have been “Democrats and Republicans Pack the Courts. Anonymouslydisengenuous.

      2. I don’t recall that CTHD but if they called his lawful exercise of such a duty court packing that was not a proper use of the phrase.
        Now the Democratic leadership has regretfully doubled down hard on the error.

        1. Republicans were the ones who introduced bills in an attempt to prevent Obama from filling open seats, Kurtz, and they chose to call Obama filling those open seats “court-packing.” Complain to them about their language choice, not me.

          Just as the Republicans are currently acting within the law, if Democrats change the size of the court, they would also be acting within the law. McConnell was acting within the law when he prevented a slew of vacancies from being filled under Obama, and yesterday you said you thought that was great.

          1. McConnel was not acting within the law when he and the GOP stole a SC seat from the majority of American voters who twice elected Obama. The constitution does not say the senate’s duty and responsibility to advise and consent is optional. It is their duty and responsibility, and they purposefully failed to meet it.

            In the future, expect no president’s SC nominations to be heard no matter when in his/her’s term they may occur if the opposite party controls the Senate. This could easily become standard for appellate judges as well.

            1. As best I can tell, it’s legal for the Senate to allow nominations to lapse, JF. It’s not the first time they’ve done that. I don’t approve, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

              1. Committ is it is as plain as day that the senators are to advise and consent on the President’s nominations to the court. There is no language in the Constitution giving them an option and time was not a factor. They purposefully failed their Constitutional duty and the Constitution is the law of the land.

              2. CTHD, the constitution could not be more clear, offers no options, and neither emergencies or time was a factor in their purposeful action to break the foundational law of the land.

                1. JF, can you identify even a single judge who agrees with you that it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to let nominations lapse — whether to the Supreme Court or lower courts or other roles addressed in that clause (e.g., ambassadors)?

                  If it were unconstitutional, why hasn’t it been ruled unconstitutional, when it’s happened so many times?

                  As best I can tell, it doesn’t say that the Senate “shall” advise, only that the President shall appoint with advise and consent — that absent advise and consent, the President can only nominate but not appoint (other than recess appointments).

                  1. CTHD, the problem has not been addressed by the courts not because the Senate does not have a constitutional duty to advise and consent, but because federal courts are more swayed by a reluctance to cross the separations of powers in the Constitution. It has not been addressed by the courts to find it legal or not,. but it is the clear law of the land none the less. Here is a discussion of the issue you may find interesting.


                    1. Thanks, I’l try to read the article.

                      I doubt that it’s reluctance on the courts’ part. They can’t rule unless someone brings suit, and I don’t have the impression that anyone with standing has ever filed suit (though I could be wrong). Why wouldn’t a President file if he believed it’s unconstitutional?

                  2. CTHD, it has not been challenged because as you noted. like on the filibuster, both major parties have used senate rules in their favor. But like their off the charts use of the filibuster over the last decade, the GOP has gone outside of accepted and normal Senate behavior on advise and consent. In modern history, a hold on a SC nomination has been used to deny a nominee a seat, but never to hold a President from a nomination until Garland.This is a corruption of our system as designed by the founders and an affront to voters. It is little wonder that many Americans complain about nothing getting done in Washington when their will – expressed at the voting booth – dies on the Senate floor.

  15. Two things to consider:

    Structurally, by favoring less populous states, the Senate will usually skew heavily Republican. Democrats can only win the Senate when there is a real landslide in the country – as happened in 2008 and will likely happen this year.

    Republicans – as long as they control the Senate and nothing else have shown a willingness to simply not confirm any judges Democrats support. They did this in the last year of Obama’s term – what is to stop them from doing it in the first or second year of some other President’s term.

    So in years like this – when Dems likely win the Senate, Presidency and House – it is really their only chance to ever appoint Democratic justices. If Thomas were to die in year 3 of a Biden term and the Republicans have just taken back the Senate – do you think they are going to let Biden fill that seat? No.

    Pack the court. It is the only way. After that is done, then take another Gallup poll and you will probably have the same mix of people saying it is too right wing or left wing for their taste.

    1. How to rationalize immorality in one short post.

      Mcconnell (even his pen name seeks to blacken his betters), shows the moral bankruptcy of our hyperpolarized society; those on the fringes will do and justify anything.

      1. momument’s comment is interesting. When you say those on the fringes perhaps you are diminishing the extent to which nihilistic attitudes along the lines of end justifies means, wholly dominates the Democratic party leadership now.

        As evidence I point to the work of Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s father’s academic work at the University of Notre Dame on Antonio Gramsci. The “postmodernist’ attitude prevails not at the fringe of the Democratic party, but at its very core

  16. Why hasn’t Turley been discussing the Republicans earlier efforts at court packing and previous statements about it?

    Seems worth repeating some quotes from yesterday:

    Patrick Rodenbush: “Republicans would *never* change the size of the Supreme Court… unless, of course, they thought it would help them politically.” In 2016, some Republicans threatened “that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the GOP should prevent anyone she nominates from being confirmed to fill the current court vacancy, or any future vacancy”:

    In 2017, Senator Cornyn referred to Pres. Obama nominating judges to fill existing DC Circuit vacancies court packing:
    The National Review also called Obama filling the DC Circuit seats as a “court-packing scheme.”
    Republicans in the House and Senate introduced bills to reduce the size of the DC Circuit in order to prevent Obama from filling those seats.

    Jeffrey Sachs: “The number of attempts by the GOP in recent years to pack or shrink the size of state supreme courts is incredible. ”
    He elaborates here with multiple examples:

    The Republicans in the Senate also worked to keep a lot of federal judgeships open during Obama’s presidency.
    Daily Beast in 2017: “The reason there are currently 11 judicial vacancies in Texas is because [Sen. Leahy reinstuted blue slips and] Republican Sens. Cruz and Cornyn refused to sign off on any Obama nominee. The WH eventually gave up even offering names to fill them.” “No Obama district or circuit court nominee in eight years even got a hearing before the Judiciary Committee unless both home-state senators returned blue slips saying “yea.””
    The Republicans have done away with blue slips under Trump, in order to prevent the behavior that they engaged in under Obama.

    Orin Kerr (UC Berkeley law school): “If the politics were reversed, I have no doubt that court-packing would be a major topic on the right to counter an increasingly far-left Supreme Court. It’s a flaw with Article III, I think; Given the SCT’s (modern) role, the Const should settle the Court’s size, but it doesn’t.”

    Dave Weigel: “How come “court-packing” and not “ending the filibuster” became the go-to question for Biden? You don’t get the first one unless you do the second. Unless people think there are a bunch of GOP senators on board to add 4 Sotomayor clerks to SCOTUS.”

    Of course, it’s not up to Biden whether the Senate chooses to end the filibuster. Biden is being asked about something he doesn’t control.

    Rick Hasen (Law and Political Science prof at UC Irvine):
    “The media focus on Biden’s answers on “court packing” are astounding given that the media has hardly explained how far to the right the confirmation of Justice Barrett will move the Supreme Court. It will affect climate change, affirmative action, voting rights, reproductive rts. The American people do not realize the freight train coming toward them with a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. Here’s my @nymag piece on what that will mean just for voting and elections And there’s no question that on health care, gun rights, and the clash between LGBT rights and religious liberty, many Americans are going to be profoundly unhappy with what a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is likely to do.”

    1. To: committohonestdiscussion. So now your putting words in the mouths of Joe Biden. He didn’t say it would be a mistake to pack the court unless the Republicans appoint more consevatives to the court. He simply said it would be a mistake. He also said we will rue the day. He also said we add three and they add three and it would destroy the credibility of the court. He offered no caveats to these statements. Hillary said deplorables. Biden said he would only tell us if he would pack the court after the election. He said the people do not deserve to know what he will do. All of these words came directly from the lips of Joe Biden. You can try to downplay it all you want but you can not take back what ha said. It’s all on video tape. She stepped in it with “deplorables” and he has stepped in it with “I’m not going to answer that question because the people don’t need to know. The cover up won’t work.

      1. “To: committohonestdiscussion. So now your putting words in the mouths of Joe Biden.”

        I’ll wait for you to quote where you think I did that, since I’m sure that you don’t want to put words in *my* mouth.

    2. To: CommitToHonestDiscussion. Ofcourse Biden can’t control eliminating the ending of the filibuster. It’s already been done. The Democratic Senate started that ball rolling by eliminating the filibuster in 2013. Do you think such a move would have been made without consent coming from the top i.e. Barack Obama and Mr. Right hand man, 47 years in the Senate Joe Biden. It’ already been done there Commit.

      1. Thinkitthrough:

        The general Senate filibuster rule still exists; they changed the rule for judicial votes, but not for most legislation, and the issue involves legislation.

        I’m still waiting for you to provide the quote I asked for here:

        Either provide a quote or retract your unsubstantiated claim about me.

        1. The changeing of Senate rules can be done by a simple majority. Do you think the Republicans would have gone along to overcome a filibuster. The Supreme Court is very important but the Appelate courts hear many more cases than the Supreme Court. A very small number of Appelate cases ever make it to the Supreme Court. So, what was the motivation of the Democrats in eliminating the filibuster for the Appelate Court nominees. Was the motivation all sweetness and fairness or was the motivation the quest for power. Please listen to the words of Joe Biden about packing the Supreme Court. Joe did not say anything about issues or confirmation of future Justices. He simply said that packing the court was a bad idea. I can understand your reasons for wanting to pack the court and how important they are to you but Joe didn’t say any of that. You are intimating that the reason Joe won’t say wether he would pack the court is because of the seriousness of the issues at hand. He should just say: Let me refer you to my previous positions on the issue in which he said packing the court is a bad idea, as did Justice Ginsburg by the way. The number of Supreme Court justices has been the number nine for the last 150 years. Bringing the court back up to nine is not packing the court. As to recent polls, A Rasmussen poll says that 55 % of Americans do not support packing the court. Even 42% of Democrats are against packing the court. Another interesting Galup poll. When Americans are asked if they are better off now than they were 4 years ago 56% say they are better off now. Your better off now than you was so your gonna vote for Ole Joe Biden. Now that there just don’t make no common cents. Sides Ole Joe done stuck his foot in it now and he can’t find no way to get it off his boot.

          1. To: CommitToHonestDiscussion

            You said in your post that the media is obsessed with the court packing issue. Basically you are telling us that the court packing issue on which Joe Biden won’t give his position is not linked to your position on the make up of the courts.
            You are trying to downplay the importants of the court packing issue. Nowhere in your post have you said that you are against packing the court. I have a proposal. You announce to the world that you are against packing the court and I will apologize for misconstruing your position. Joe said packing the court would be a bad idea. He did not say it 20 years ago. He said it in 2019.

  17. In defense of Joe Biden, he just hasn’t been told where he stands on “court packing” yet. He didn’t know who his VP was until Harris was approved by Soros.

  18. Isn’t this a variation on the “We need to pass the law before we know what’s in it” theme? You need to elect me to find out where I stand on the issues.

    1. Trump was elected almost 4 years ago, and we still don’t know his health plan.

      1. Trump doesn’t have plans, he has poses he strikes for maximum attention and he’s very good at getting that.

        I’m looking forward to a president that we may not think about for a week at a time and so is the country.

      2. You can thank John McCann for sinking his attempt to do a healthcare plan.

        1. Nonsense. McCain died over 2 years ago, while the Republicans still held both the Senate and the House, and nothing prevented Trump from releasing a plan even while McCain was alive.

        2. There was no Republican health care plan unless you mean a plan to strip health care firm Americans!

      3. Oh, Committed, how small your memory is!

        Don’t you remember the Trump plan that the sick John McCain walked onto the floor of the Senate (accompanied by Chuck Schumer) and, while pausing to smile for the cameras, cast the deciding vote to kill it?

        I remember it well.

        1. JRock,

          My memory is fine. What part of the word “plan” do you not understand? McCain voted against repealing the ACA. Repealing the ACA is not a **plan**. If you think that there was a “Trump plan” and McCain voted against it, just link to the **plan** you’re talking about, and let’s see if you’re right that it was truly a healthcare plan vs. only a being repeal without any plan to replace it.

          As I already pointed out, McCain died over 2 years ago, while the Republicans still held both the Senate and the House, so if they’d actually had a plan, they easily could have acted after he died.

          More to the point, absolutely nothing prevented Trump from releasing a **plan** even while McCain was alive … except for the fact that Trump has no plan.

          1. Obamacare is failing, and will eventually fail completely, because Rahm Emmanuel cut a deal with the largest insurers before the bill ever hit the floor, that ensured that the largest health insurance companies would maintain their monopoly.

            Apparently you failed to notice that Barry the Grifter was very good at being a well compensated shine boy for big money interests

Comments are closed.