Biden’s Parade of Horribles: A Review Of The “Alternatives” For The New Biden Commission On Changing The Supreme Court

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the range of options referenced by Vice President Joe Biden in the last debate that may be considered by his new “commission” for reforming the Supreme Court.  It is worth looking at the parade of horribles proposed by academics for changing the Court to legislatively negate the majority of conservative justices after the addition of Amy Coney Barrett to the Court (as early as today). The concern is that this is little beyond enablement by commission as Democrats claim license to do lasting harm to one of the most important institutions in our constitutional system.

Here is the column:

The vote on Monday to make Judge Amy Coney Barrett the 115th Supreme Court justice will be more than a confirmation. It will be a dispensation, according to former Vice President Joe Biden and various Democratic senators. They have cited the vote as relieving them of any guilt in fundamentally changing the court to manufacture a liberal majority. Like school kids daring others to step over a line as an excuse to fight, Democrats insist that filling this vacancy will invite changes ranging from “packing” the court to stripping it of authority to rule in certain cases.

The problem is that the line the Senate will step over is set by the Constitution, while the proposals by Democrats would retaliate against the use of a power granted by the Constitution. Democrats are floating a parade of horribles to “reform” the Supreme Court and negate its growing conservative majority. Biden said this week that the court is “out of whack” and, as president, he would assemble a commission of “experts” to explore “a number of alternatives that go well beyond packing.” The commission would report to him 180 days after his inauguration.

Polls show almost 60 percent of Americans oppose the court packing scheme supported by Democrats, including Biden’s running mate, Senator Kamala Harris. One person not polled was the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who denounced such a scheme as guaranteeing the court’s destruction.

A New York Times and Siena College poll found only 31 percent favor court packing. That is a familiar figure: For the last four years, the same 30 percent of both parties have supported the most destructive political measures and rhetoric. Those extremes continue to control our politics, while the vast majority of us in the middle watch in disbelief as virtually every Democratic senator embraces one of the most reviled tactics in American history. Those senators are not alone. A host of professors (who likely will be on the short list for Biden’s commission) are giving credibility to court packing.

Harvard professor Michael Klarman attacked the foundations of Congress before attacking the foundations of the court. Klarman condemned a “malapportionment” in the Senate that he believes gives Republicans greater power, and referred to their refusal to vote on Obama court nominee Merrick Garland as “stealing a seat.” While controversial (and I was among those calling for a vote on Garland), that decision was clearly constitutional. Yet Klarman illogically calls it “court packing” to justify any act of retaliation: “Democrats are not initiating this spiral. They are simply responding in kind.”

He then says not to worry about Republicans responding with their own court packing when they return to power. He insists Democrats can change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election,” at least not without abandoning their values. Of course, Klarman concedes “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described” so the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur. Here are some of the other wacky ideas to get the court back into “whack.”

Jurisdiction stripping

Several professors argue for a court packing alternative that moves to the opposite approach: If you cannot make the court bigger, then shrink its authority. By using “jurisdiction stripping,” Democrats would bar federal courts from reviewing certain types of legislation. So, faced with a conservative court, a Democratic Congress would make the courts into a nullity to give itself unchecked authority in various areas. Assuming courts would allow such a move, it would create a race to the bottom as more and more legislation was protected from judicial review.

Supermajority voting

Another approach is to leave the Supreme Court at its current size but effectively “pack” the vote by requiring supermajority decisions. A Democratic Congress would enhance the votes of the court’s minority by requiring a two-thirds vote or even unanimity for certain types of cases or laws. It is an ironic idea since, against the advice of many, Democrats got rid of the Senate filibuster for judicial nominations when it held the majority — fundamentally changing longtime protections for a Senate minority. In this case, Democrats would designate favored areas or types of cases protected by supermajority rules, thereby manipulating the court’s votes.

Balanced bench

Pete Buttigieg and some academics have proposed disregarding any pretense of nonpartisan justices. They would convert the court into a kind of judicial Federal Communications Commission, with Democrats and Republicans each picking five justices who would then pick five more from federal appeals courts to serve terms of one year. That would make the Supreme Court a crude reflection of our dysfunctional political times.

Notably, the Supreme Court is reviewing such a partisan court system in Carney versus Adams. The case must be familiar to Biden, since it deals with a moronic Delaware constitutional requirement that the five seats on the state’s Supreme Court be divided between Democrats and Republicans — preventing an independent from becoming a justice. In Delaware, a “balanced court” apparently means you must first establish that you are from the right party before you can mete out justice The proposal would have a continually shifting court and, since the five transient justices would be selected based on party affiliation, they likely would become pawns in a partisan calculation.

Another proposal would “solve” the “problem” of a conservative majority by literally turning every judge into an associate justice. A lottery would be held every two weeks to randomly select nine justices to hear cases, with each panel limited to no more than five judges nominated by a president of the same political party. Senator Bernie Sanders actually endorsed this looney idea. It is akin to the character “Syndrome” in “The Incredibles” explaining he would give everyone superpowers because “when everyone’s super … no one will be.” Most Americans are unlikely to want to replace today’s court with a law by lottery approach.

As someone who proposed expanding the Supreme Court decades ago, I am not opposed to reform. However, Biden’s proposed commission is not about reform. It is about packing, stacking, and stripping schemes to achieve political outcomes on the Supreme Court. Biden is offering up the institution to the 30 percent demanding extreme measures to satiate their anger. Biden once denounced court packing as a “bone headed idea” — but he may now appoint a commission to convert a variety of bone headed ideas into bona fide proposals.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

183 thoughts on “Biden’s Parade of Horribles: A Review Of The “Alternatives” For The New Biden Commission On Changing The Supreme Court”

  1. Oh, this will be fun. The thing is, the conduct of the appellate courts for the last 80 years has been such that they invite this sort of manipulation. The thing is, the courts in that time have hardly impeded the liberal agenda at all. Citizens United prevented a legal regime wherein corporations favoring the Democratic Party get to say what they please while other corporations are constrained and the Heller decision but the brakes on subsets of gun control legislation; since the formulation ‘the right of the people’ almost invariably refers to a personal right the court had clear warrant in Heller. It’s characteristic of the Democratic Party’s fundamental childishness that their partisans throw tantrums over these infrequent losses.

    Recall what the implications are of an originalist majority on the court: some issues get tossed back to the state legislatures for resolution. That’s it. All their bellyaching is about having to make their case to state legislators. Even with Judge Barrett’s confirmation, we would not have an originalist majority. We’d have three liberal activists, four originalists; a chief justice who bounces back and forth in response to esoteric influences, and a judge inclined to impose the preferences of the neckbeards at Reason magazine.

  2. Either the few sane and educated rump members of the dem party need clean their house or they will go down with this hateful anti-American movement that is on a suicidal path of self-immolation.

    1. “..the few sane and educated rump members of the dem party..”

      I really don’t think there are even a ‘few’ sand and educated (whatever ‘educated’ means today) members in that party.

  3. Turley: this is becoming sad. How pathetic that you use your credentials and platform to engage in the type of partisan, hysterical hyperbole such as: “The concern is that this is little beyond enablement by commission as Democrats claim license to do lasting harm to one of the most important institutions in our constitutional system.” So, Turley’s concerned about “doing lasting harm”? Really? How about the lasting harm of extreme conservatives conniving ways to get around stare decisis and using the SCOTUS as a place to shove their religious beliefs onto people who don’t share them? We’ve read Covid-Barrett’s writings. She’s already expressed ways to de facto reverse Roe without making it a de jure flat-out reversal. This is contrary to what most Americans want. The same is true for the ACA: tens of millions of Americans will lose health coverage, in a bungled pandemic, no less. All brought to you thanks to likely lame duck hypocrites who denied the American people their choice of Merrick Garland, chosen by a POTUS who didn’t cheat to get into the White House.

    Turley cannot cite any provision of the Constitution that says justices cannot be added. In fact, there have been various numbers of justices since our founding, including more than 9. Why is Turley so opposed to Americans having a voice in selection of SCOTUS justices? The views of the Federalist Society, which is really choosing these judges, are to the extreme right of most of America. That is far more destructive to America than adding more judges to dilute the influence of the extreme conservatives.

    1. As Dems keep losing and failing to get power through legitimate means, they get more and more desperate and will try just about anything. This is just the latest, pathetic attempt. When you win, and there is a vacancy, you can appoint your candidate. Otherwise, leave it alone. It is insulting to think that a judge, whose oath is to be impartial, can be counted on to vote the way you want them to. But such is the attempt to change the rules when you are losing under the current rules. Ask Harry Reid how that worked out.

        1. ” I’m expecting massive vote fraud this year.”

          Of course you are. It’s the only way that you’ll be able to rationalize the outcome of the election, if it doesn’t go your way.

      1. Ds consistently get more votes then Rs. It is only due to the oddities and gerrymandering of our system that the Rs have any power.

        1. Molly disregards the hundreds if not thousands of elections at federal, state, and local level which elect Republicans

          as if the one office of POTUS was determinate of all power rather than its one power, however significant

          Democrats get away with these kinds of fake news lies all the time

        2. 1. They don’t (and it’s easy to check,whiny)

          2. The term ‘gerrymandering’ does not mean what you fancy it means. The Republicans are more efficiently distributed then Democrats. Unless you contrive to gerrymander in favor of the Democrats, the Republicans will in seat totals outrun by a small margin the sum of popular votes. That’s what happens when a lot of your support is locked up in core city neighborhoods where you win 9/1 margins. Suck it up, woman.

      2. Bob, what are you smoking? It’s Republicans who cannot get what they want legitimately. They tried legislatively 70 times to overturn the ACA, so now they have Covid-Barrett to do it. They howled when Scalia died in February about a replacement before the November election, and now, they’re shoving Covid-Barrett onto the SCOTUS. When Obama was President, McConnell ignored hundreds of federal district and appellate court nominations, only to shove hundreds of these onto the bench since the fat slob entered our White House. More Fox News projecting.

        1. Dems hate McConnell for playing the political game as ruthlessly as they do. Do you really believe that Dems would have played it any differently given the same circumstance? Hell no.

  4. Why do you think Biden spends so much time at home? Could it be because he’s to old to handle the process of campaigining no less running the country

    1. First of all, he’s not spending time at home or in a basement, like the liar in chief claims. He has at least as many rallies, but not the shoulder-to-shoulder type without masks because he’s listening to what the health experts say about masks and social distancing, to save lives. The “sleepy Joe hides in his basement”, and “sleepy Joe is senile” are themes you got off of Fox, and they’re lies.

      1. Biden executive time>>> exercise bike riding, working, doing distant interviews.

        Trump executive time>>> obsessive tv watching and cheese burgers.

        1. Actually, what Trump has accomplished in a few years in Washington is far beyond anything Joe Biden has done in all his decades hanging around Washington doing nothing but talk and get filty rich off his office. He’s the worst kind of politician: coming down on every side of any issue, standing for nothing, and doing nothing –but allowing his family to shamelessly cash in on his name by selling access all over the world. World leaders know Biden is for sale. Shameful and disqualifying.

      2. Biden does not have ‘at least as many rallies’…..that is a lie.

        Over the weekend Trump was in Florida, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania. Joe Biden did an event in Pennsylvania that was limited to “party officials and donors” and that registration was not open to the general public. On Sunday Joe was back resting at home calling yet another “lid.”

        Biden is not out on the trail campaigning because the more he is seen and heard in public, the worse he does in the polls. Voters can see he is not up to the job. Voters know that Biden has been hanging around Washington for decades, standing for nothing and doing nothing but enriching himself and his entire family by cashing in on his office. He has no business being anywhere near the White House or public office ever again.

      3. And here’s the news you will never see in the news….MORE Trump supporters show up at Joe Biden’s events than Biden supporters. It’s embarrassing to see hundreds of Trump supporters enthusiastically waving Trump flags at every Biden event. So the news media will not show it.

      4. “The “sleepy Joe hides in his basement”, and “sleepy Joe is senile” are themes you got off of Fox, and they’re lies.”

        No, sorry to tell you, they are actually true. Maybe Joe is ‘upstairs’ in his 7,000 square foot palatiial lake front home, and not in the basement, but the fact remains: Joe Biden is not out on the campaign trail working to earn your votes. He is at home, hiding from public, avoiding press scrutiny, and letting the biased, corrupt media do his campaigning for him.

      5. You’re the shameless stinking liar Natch! Even the fake news admits Trump has many events and Biden, few!

        Farting out your fibs every day on this website from your gaping piehole, sad!

        Kamala’s event in Asheville NC last week a joke! Maybe 10 people? HA!

        1. Kamala is at Hillary levels of unlikeable. And she is a lot like Joe, in that she doesn’t stand for anything either.

          Who knows what Kamala stands for. Fracking yes or no? Court packing yes or no? Green Deal yes or no? Raising taxes yes or no? Joe is a racist yes or no? Joe is a sexual predator yes or no? She talks out of both sides of her mouth. She tries so hard to ‘be cool’ and she fails every time.

          And then what’s up with her weird laughing at everything all the time? She nervously and weirdly laughs at everything. Disqualifying to say the least.

          1. “And then what’s up with her weird laughing at everything all the time? She nervously and weirdly laughs at everything.”

            Here is the answer!

            Kamala strangely and inappropriately laughs at nothing all the time because…..wait for it….

            She knows…

            JOE BIDEN IS LAUGHABLY UNFIT TO BE THE PRESIDENT

            And Kamala KNOWS it better than most anyone.

            Hence, the odd laughter always coming from unlikeable Kamala.

  5. Jonathan Turley said: “As someone who proposed expanding the Supreme Court decades ago, I am not opposed to reform. However, Biden’s proposed commission is not about reform. It is about packing, stacking, and stripping schemes to achieve political outcomes on the Supreme Court. ”

    Are you sure, Jonathan?

    One of your old postings:

    “The Nineteen Member Court: The Case For Expanding The United States Supreme Court”

    https://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/24/the-nineteen-member-court-the-case-for-expanding-the-united-states-supreme-court/

    If not now (or soon)…, when?

    1. That was when it was looking like another 4 years of Obama and the court could have become more liberal. Now that the court is swinging his way, this tune is different.

  6. @Squeeky- you posted a very interesting piece from John Kunstler. I was in the process of responding, but your post now seems to be gone. Do you know what happened to your post, or am I just missing it?

    1. I have followed Kunster avidly since I read his fantastic two books on the New Urbanism, asbout the history of American land use and development, and how to change zoning codes going forward to make communities more livable. Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere

      check out his awesome new book “The Long Emergency”

      Kunstler is a prophet

      here is his blog. you have to replace the x with a k. and omit the space in front of his name. then you can read them all

      https:// kunstler.com/writings/clusterfucx-nation/

      as a recovered liberal, Kunstler has deep insights

  7. SCOTUS has been politicized for quite a while. Rs literally campaign on putting their people on the court. And SCOTS has a 6-3 R majority, but the last 7 of 8 presidential elections the Ds won the popular vote. Appointing a commission to look into reform is a normal, and reasonable path forward.

  8. Republicans have made clear the rules as they see it. Unless there is both a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate, there will not be a Democratic SCOTUS nominee confirmed. Last time they tried to justify it by saying it was because it was in the last year of a President’s term – but now we know that the “last year of a President’s term” is not the rule at all. Democrats would not have done that.

    So should Democrats sit back and wait to see if Republicans control the Senate next time there is a vacancy? We know the Senate is skewed towards Republicans because it is overrepresents small states – i.e., Republican strongholds. We know the Republicans have no principle except they confirm Republican nominees and do not even consider Democratic nominees. They even got rid of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.

    So Democrats can never win this game if they just acquiesce to this Republican changing of the rules. Republicans are unbounded by rules. There is simply no argument otherwise. McConnell broke the Senate and the Supreme Court.

      1. Massachusetts is the 15th largest state. That means there are 35 smaller states.

        But yeah, don’t let facts get in the way of your World view.

    1. We know the Senate is skewed towards Republicans because it is overrepresents small states – i.e., Republican strongholds.

      Small population states are as follows in their disposition:

      Hawaii – D
      Alaska – R
      Idaho – R
      Montana – mixed
      Wyoming – R
      North Dakota – R
      South Dakota – R
      Nebraska – R
      New Mexico – D
      West Virginia – mixed
      Delaware – D
      Vermont – D
      New Hampshire – mixed
      Maine – mixed
      Rhode Island – D

      Large population states are as follows:

      California – D
      Texas -R
      Florida – mixed
      New York – D
      Pennsylvania – mixed
      Illinois – D
      Ohio – mixed
      Georgia – R
      Michigan – mixed
      North Carolina – mixed
      New Jersey – D
      Virginia – mixed.

      Now piss off.

  9. Jonathan: Gee, the election is still 9 days out and your column features a photo of Joe Biden as if he has already won. Why be so pessimistic?
    With Judge Barrett on the Court there will be a super majority to cause their own “parade of horribles”, to use your phrase, by intervening on Trump’s side should he decide to challenge mail-in votes or other aspects of the voting process.

    While polls show a majority of voters oppose court packing the same majorities are opposed to Trump filling the Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Most voters want the next president to fill the vacancy. But Trump and the Republican Senate, with your support, pushed through their own form of “court packing” disregarding the will of voters. If Biden does win I will urge him to appoint you to the proposed “commission” for reforming the Supreme Court so you can explain why at one time you supported expanding the Court but now oppose it.

      1. I’m afraid most of the judges on the court (and their families) will require 24/7 security to protect them from the James T. Hodgkinson wing of the Democratic Party. For how long, who knows?

  10. Dear Joey B,
    I thought the “commission” for change is: of the people, for the people, by the people, US Constitution, US Congress, US Senate and US Judiciary. I don’t recall a commission for change in there, comrade.

  11. Trump tool Turley ignores the fact that Trump and the GOP have already broken the court and from here on out it’s jungle ball – no rules, just power. So Jonathan, cut the crap. You don;t care about principle and integrity on the court. You knew this would happen when the GOP stole one seat from the majority of American voters and gave it to a loser they rejected, and now are doing the same 1 week before that loser get’s the bum’s rush from the WH. If you didn’t, you should be teaching middle school history and coaching the football team, not teaching law at a University.

    1. No seat was stolen.

      It’s pretty basic stuff. When each new Congress is seated, the Senate votes for who it wants as Senate Majority Leader. The SML’s job is to prioritize the Senate’s business. The SML can pass whatever bills he has the votes for in the Senate, but he can’t force the House to take up those bills. And a President’s veto can only be overridden by a supermajority in both houses. That’s the beauty of our system. Its called the separation of powers.

      Most of us learn this in elementary school.

      Obama nominated Garland. McConnell, as SML, chose not to prioritize Garland’s confirmation hearings. There’s nothing illegitimate about it. Democrats slow walked and let DOZENS of GWB nominees languish in committee rather than confirm them. The process was talking so long that several GWB nominees decided to get on with their lives and withdrew from consideration. But clowns who falsely pretend Garland’s seat was “stolen” never complain about THAT.

      If McConnel was playing politics with Garland’s nomination, he was playing a very dumb game.

      That’s because at the time, virtually NOBODY believed Trump would win. And if Clinton had won, as expected, she would have been under no obligation to re-nominate Garland. And if she had won with long coattails and managed to flip control of the Senate over to the dark side, then she likely would have nominated a far left activist crank who would have made Garland look like a Scalia wannabe.

      And you would not be crying about an imaginary “stolen seat”.

      1. I think his handlers at Correct-the-Record told him to just repeat the lies ad infinitum. See ‘Collusion has been proved’. No clue how his family puts up with him.

      2. Scott , read the constitution The Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent on supreme court justices is not optional, and a purposeful failure to do so for the purpose of stealing a seat from a President has never occurred before. Thanks for noting that Garland was a centrist Democrat – who Republicans had praised and voted for when he was up for a Circuit court seat – as he proves it wasn’t the nominee but the President who they targeted. Here’s the Constitution – read it.

        “[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

  12. The Repos are about to put someone on the SC who could not answer if the President can alter the election day. She could not answer anything about Climate Change because…well because she just doesn’t know much about it.

    What the Repos are doing is disgusting. They told us how terrible it was to put a nominee on the SC in an election year. What they really meant is that it was bad for the opposition party to put someone on the SC in any year.

    The Repos lied and there are no two ways about it. So how do you deal with them? IMHO, the Repos have destroyed the Repo name for years, perhaps decades to come.In some states the Repos are in the process of keeping the masses as dumb as possible. That only works so long. I have a feeling their extended welcome in certain states is about to be reminded.

    In the coming blue wave, my hope is the Demos take a lesson here and not overextend their welcome like the Repos did.

    My fear is they will have learned nothing.

    1. “She could not answer anything about Climate Change because…well because she just doesn’t know much about it.”

      Let’s see what you know about climate change/anthropogenic global warming, Paul.

      “Definition of anthropogenic: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature”.

      So, what did the influence of human beings have to do with the Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age?

      (FYI- Your Captain Planet decoder ring won’t help you with the answer).

      Look forward to your answer.

  13. Professor, I have a question a legal expert can answer but I have not been able to find anyone to respond to it. Perhaps you can. How is Joe Biden’s role in Hunter’s schemes NOT a violation of 18 USC 201(b)(2)? It seems to me that his mere mention in the matter at least “indirectly” benefited him or that, if he actually did discuss issues as Tony Bobulinski stayed, he was at least in a conspiracy conspiracy to obtain benefits indirectly from his position Either way it is a crime I would think. What am I missing?

  14. I liked your suggestion awhile back of a 19 member SCOTUS, Turley. Hopefully that’s the take home point you’re aiming at after the mish mash of Repub devils advocate whining you trotted out in the body of this article.

    “Yet Klarman illogically calls it “court packing” to justify any act of retaliation: “Democrats are not initiating this spiral. They are simply responding in kind.” >>> most truer statement in the article.

    Rather staggering you made it through the whole puch piece without addressing the Garland issue except to discount it.

  15. Could Americans, of all political parties, agree to substantial non-partisan “Civics Education” in high school, college and civil service jobs. The fact that colleges are violating the First Amendment is a real crisis for the next generation of voters and future leaders. Educating the next generation would protect the 14th Amendment rights of Progressives while also protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of Conservatives. Right now there is the non-partisan civics tool http://www.icivics.com created by Sandra Day O’Connor. Any parent can use this tool for free.

  16. Apparently Turley is a Faux News contributor. Is it any wonder he vilified the media competition? Correct me if I am wrong, but can anyone cite a blog post where he criticizes Faux News, Newsmax or OAN?

    1. Jeffrey, at least you could have clicked on the “Bio” tab before asking stupid & banal questions.

      https://jonathanturley.org/about/

      “Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.”

      BTW, as always, Joe Friday has no idea what he’s talking about.

      1. Turley’s only appearing on Fox and in The Hill. If he wants to get on the other networks he’ll have to rob a bank as his pretense to principled commentary is gone..

    2. Yeah, and so is Chris Wallace. Juan Williams and Shep Smith also worked for Fox. So did NeverTrump shrike George Will. Fox differs from the other networks in that they occasionally hire Republicans and their programming doesn’t frame every single issue in favor of what the Democratic Party wants. Perkins Coie ought to hire people with more acuity.

  17. This is the same U.S. Supreme Court that has allowed 9/11 COINTELPRO-style blacklisting torture for almost 20 years. Destroying likely thousands of innocent Americans without charge, without trial and without an overt guilty verdict. Blacklisting is the very worst form of torture and the court has been apathetic to all it.

    1. “…9/11 COINTELPRO-style blacklisting torture for almost 20 years.”

      It goes well beyond blacklisting.

      And for victims, there is no redress.

      1. Word is Trump will FIRE torture enabler Gina Haskell from CIA if he wins.

        Of course he should not have seated her in the first place!

        1. “Of course he should not have seated her in the first place.”

          But he did.

          And look what was done to Assange.

          Also, Snowden is still in Russia.

  18. Trump’s Parade of Horribles fills the Cabinet. It fills the White House and the State Department. It has riddle the government with corruption and distancing for the Constitution. Turley you have become mired in you embrace of the Republican Party. I hardly recognize you but I guess you think that is where the money is.

    If you want to talk about the Supreme Court, let’s talk about Merrick Garland.

    1. Not sure why a legal scholar who advocates free speech and discussion would be against a bipartisan commission to discuss and make recommendations on court reform that could consider his own proposal in this area and could be a candidate for appointment to the commission.

      1. because he speaks the truth and has, on occasion, disagreed with those of his party, he will never be considered because they are such poor losers and their motivation is not to do the right thing, but to assure themselves power when they can’t get it through legitimate channels. Like the Mueller team, this commission would be packed with many of the same folks whose recommendations are already known and “in the bag.” And you thought Nixon was bad.

      2. “a bipartisan commission”

        WTF are you talking about?

        If the Democrats controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate, there would be nothing remotely bipartisan about that commission.

        They have already clearly stated their objective.

Leave a Reply