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.

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

  1. Trump Plans Another ‘Super-Spreader’ For Barrett

    And Mitch McConnell’s Odd Admission

    Donald Trump was planning on Monday to dismiss public health concerns and hold a swearing-in ceremony within hours of Amy Coney Barrett’s expected Senate confirmation to the supreme court.

    The president’s announcement of Barrett’s nomination in the White House Rose Garden last month was described as a “superspreader” event, after officials including the president himself became infected with the coronavirus.

    But with Barrett’s confirmation appearing a formality, the White House was planning another event for the evening, enabling Trump to celebrate a political victory just eight days before the election.

    Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, told reporters: “Tonight, we’ll be doing the best we can to encourage as much social distancing as possible. It’ll be outdoors if it goes off as planned right now. And [we will] still continue to do testing in and around those that are critical to the mission to try to get there.”

    Meadows disputed that the first Barrett celebration was necessarily the cause of widespread infection.

    “The very first event, while there’s a whole lot of connects that have been made with who was at the event and who came down with it, we’ve been able to look at that and track as many as three different areas where the virus actually infected different people within the White House. So it didn’t all come from that particular event.”

    The plan came despite a fresh outbreak that saw several close aides of Mike Pence test positive at the weekend. Trump – who himself spent three nights in hospital receiving treatment for the virus – continues to barnstorm the country with big rallies, where many people do not wear masks or physically distance.

    On Monday Ron Wyden of Oregon accused Republicans, who blocked Obama’s last supreme court pick in 2016 because it was an election year, of hypocrisy.

    “Republicans went back on their word,” he said. “If the cure to Covid-19 was partisanship and rule breaking, then Senate Republicans might be on to something with their low stunt on the high court. But it’s not.”

    Kirsten Gillibrand of New York argued that Republicans, whom polls suggest could lose both the White House and Senate, are “rushing because they know this may be their last chance to impose their extreme conservative views on our country”.

    On Sunday, the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, suggested that was true, when he said: “A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

    Edited from: “Trump Plans New White House Event For Amy Coney Barrett Swearing In”

    Today’s Guardian


    On Sunday, the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, suggested that was true, when he said: “A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

    This comment from McConnell is getting attention today. Here the Senate Majority Leader seemingly admits he may not hold that position beyond January. In other words: “Yes, we’re rushing Barrett’s nomination because we may not be in power much longer”

    1. Both Trump and Judge Barrett have had COVID and neither is infectious. Since the original announcement was held in the open air, the notion that it was a super-spreader event cannot be taken seriously.

    2. “Yes, we’re rushing Barrett’s nomination because we may not be in power much longer”

      Conversely, if the GOP should repeat 2016, they should stack the Courts with 21 Justices, all Originalists, change the Senate rules as they see fit, and stuff Pelosi and use her like a chew toy on the House floor. With all of the Nip/Tuck she’s had, her carcass is sure to outlast the walls of the US Congress

  2. Democrats should wait at least one full SCOTUS term to evaluate the new court’s jurisprudence. If it turns out that the Court is acting as a Conservative activists’ alternate legislature, they may want to consider some measures.

    However, I think what they will find is a new Court that is deferential to Congress, and willing to tell conservative activist plaintiffs (e.g., the 15 red states suing to invalidate the ACA):

    “Go across the street….take your concerns about the ACA and its impact on your states to Congress….that’s where policy decision-making belongs, not here.”

    We might know from ACB’s questions on Nov 10th if she’ll be steering political activism toward Congress.

    1. If it turns out that the Court is acting as a Conservative activists’ alternate legislature, they may want to consider some measures.

      You mean the court issues a ruling decreeing that the states treat all abortioins as homicides? That conventional matrimonial law is constitutionally required? That Congress has no power to vest the Treasury and the Federal Reserve with the sole power to issue currency? None of these would be more egregious than Obergefell or Roe. Why are you pretending this is a serious concern?

      1. I got the distinct impression from the last 3 Confirmation hearings (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) that the way to “fix” past overreaches of the Supreme Court is through Congress passing countermanding legislation and the President signing it. To be crystal clear, these 3 Justices would want Congress to pass a bill redefining the legal status of abortion, and spelling out any new punishments and who they should be levied on, and giving the Atty. Gen. the authority to prosecute in Federal Court. Then when that law is challenged, they would have no problem upholding, because the law would carry the “consent of the governed”.

        What I don’t think G, K and B would do is to change the current abortion policy as judicial fiat (the way the Warren court did). Does that make sense? What the Warren Court did was improper because the political branches (Congress and WH) had not yet spoken on the issue of abortion. There is a Constitutionally-correct way to redress a policy dispute, and it is to amass the consent of the governed behind any radical change in policy. If SCOTUS sticks to this, it will strengthen Congress, and win back respect.

        1. I got the distinct impression from the last 3 Confirmation hearings (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) that the way to “fix” past overreaches of the Supreme Court is through Congress passing countermanding legislation and the President signing it.

          Huh? The court invalidated state law on abortion and matrimonial practice and there aren’t any delegations in Article I which permit Congress to act in those realms.

          What I don’t think G, K and B would do is to change the current abortion policy as judicial fiat (the way the Warren court did). Does that make sense?

          It was the Burger Court and no you’re not making sense.

          What the Warren Court did was improper because the political branches (Congress and WH) had not yet spoken on the issue of abortion.

          Regulating abortion is part of each state’s general police power and all 50 state legislatures had spoken.

    2. Do we really need to wait a full court to see if the court is as Trump and McConnell and the Heritage Foundation designed it to be? I mean, they made no secret of their plans.

      1. You want to make the court great again, have it withdraw from the policy making process absent plain violations of constitutional language.

      1. So what? The Senate declined to consent to his nomination, which is their prerogative. He wasn’t treated discourteously.

        1. Don’t conflate Mitch McConnell and the Senate, Arty. The Senate wasn’t consulted by McConnell.

    3. And, of course, Obamacare is unconstitutional. That’s why it’s in the Supreme Court.

      Please cite the Constitution wherein Congress has the power to tax for anything other than “…general Welfare.”

      Oh, that’s right. You can’t.

      And you can’t find any evidence that President Ho-rris and Obama are anything but “citizens,” never “natural born citizens,” having parents who were foreigners on the date of birth of the candidate.

  3. Did you catch this, courtesy Sen. Edward Markey:

    “Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic,” Markey tweeted Monday. “Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.”

    If any Massachusetts Democrat wishes to offer the complaint that Donald Trump is vulgar, piss off.

    1. I saw that segment (C-SPAN2), and Sen. Markey showed he doesn’t understand originalism — he is assuming that an originalist
      disregards the newest 17 ratified Amendments, and only gives legitimacy to 1791 Constitution + Bill of Rights. An originalist gives
      authority to the Constitution as Amended, meaning for example, the 3/5th rule for the Census is countermanded by the 14th Amendment’s counting of “whole persons”.

    2. And “discrimination” is just a fancy word for the exercise of property rights, include one’s property rights in one’s own body and life.

      Q. What do rape laws protect?

      A1. A woman’s right to discriminate
      A2. A woman’s property rights in her body, i.e., her self-ownership.

      The two answers essentially are the same.

      Also, the immune system is fundamental to life. What is its function? DISCRIMINATION. The immune system discriminates between self and non-self to enable the organism to favor self and disfavor non-self.

  4. The vote on Monday to make Judge Amy Coney Barrett the 115th Supreme Court justice will be…relieving them of any guilt….

    Ya see! It’s a win win situation! Biden gets to have his sins absolved with Judge Amy’s Coronation plus Americans will no longer see ANTIFA-BLM Riots but Catholics swarming streets carrying statutes of the Blessed Virgin Mary and kneeling! From ANTIFA riots to Marian processions and Americans exercising! How cool is that!?

  5. The end justifies the means ? The Left continually displays disdain for any tradition or legal opinion that stands in the way of their program to dominate and control the government and the American people!

  6. I wonder how great the country could be if Democrats just played by the rules and tried to win by aligning with the will of the People instead of lying and cheating and changing the rules…

    1. Don’t you have the roles reversed? How about the orange slob who cheated to “win the victory”, with Russia’s help while losing the popular vote? You speak of the “will of the People”, well, the majority of the People: 1. did not vote for Trump; 2. have never supported him (he’s never gained a 50% approval rate, an historic low in the history of presidential polling; and 3. want him gone.

      He is a chronic, habitual liar. Joe Biden doesn’t have enough life left to catch up to the lies Trump has told if he constantly lied every single day. Talk about “changing the rules”? How about insisting on shoving a SCOTUS nominee onto the SCOTUS less than 2 weeks before an election, in which many of the Senators voting for confirmation will be lame ducks, given the fact that the People were denied Merrick Garland as a SCOTUS judge after Scalia died in February? And, the POTUS who selected Garland was legally elected, twice.

      1. Lets talk about rules. The rules were thrown out the window when Harry Reid got the votes to eliminate the filibuster and allow a simple majority to confirm Justices. Mitch Mcconnell said he would rue the day. Did Harry not think that the Republicans might be back in power in the future and use his rule change against him? Harry did it to pick Appellate Court Justices that the Democrats wanted. The Republicans gained controll of the Senate and the Presidency so the Harry Reid plan backfired. Obama left 120 lower court Justices for Trump to fill with the new rule. What a brilliant tactician. Rue Harry rue.

        1. “left to fill” federal appellate and district court vacancies? Obama named plenty of qualified judges, but McConnell refused to allow a vote. Instead, McConnell has pushed forward hundreds of nominees, many of whom were found by the American Bar Association to be “unqualified’, due to lack of experience. Wanna talk about experience? Amy Covid-Barrett has NEVER tried a case in her entire life. She’s a brief writer, the most-relevant of which is the brief in Gore v. Bush, that allowed Dubyah to become President because the recount in Florida was ordered stopped. Then, there’s her writings and speeches on how to overturn Roe and the ACA indirectly. That’s the only reason she was nominated, and why it is a gross insult to mention this person’s name in the same breath as Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

          1. Natacha, you know what Joe Biden would call you? A chump with a microphone.

            Get it? You had to watch his PA rally over the weekend. There were more Trump supporters outside the rally waving flags, cheering for Trump and honking horns as Joe spoke.

            And in the middle of reading his speech, telling us how he would be ‘president for everyone’ –even those who don’t support him –old Joe proceeds to get angry and then called the Trump supporters “those chumps with the microphone.”

            Yep. Joe will be a ‘unifying’ President for all – even the ‘chumps’ he loathes and holds nothing but contempt for. Riiiight. Sure thing, Joe.

          2. Amy Covid-Barrett has NEVER tried a case in her entire life.

            She was for two years an associate at a firm that specializes in trial practice. Do you ever stop lying?

    2. “It’s the [will of the Constitution], stupid!”

      – James Carville


      America must align with its Constitution. You suggest alignment with the Communist Manifesto.

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

      – Ben Franklin

      Since inception in Greece, all so-called democracies were actually rational, restricted-vote republics. The U.S. turnout in 1788 was 11.6% with vote criteria of: Male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres. Without republican controls on the election process, “democracy” is impossible. The inmates take over the asylum. Look around you at the massive welfare state, which includes unconstitutional affirmative action, and $27 trillion in unpayable debt.

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

      – Alexander Fraser Tytler

      The Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom.

      “Free stuff” comes with enslavement.

      America couldn’t keep Franklin’s republic and it will be not dissimilar to the American Revolution; taking it back.

  7. Joe Biden said packing the court would be a bonehead move. Oh, it doesn’t matter what he said before! How many times can this guy change his positions before he’s called out on it. First he said he would let us know what his position would be after the election. Instead of telling us his position he won’t tell us his position. He did say the court is out of wack. If something is out of wack it needs to be fixed. With this statement he let us know what he will do. He tried to not tell us, but he told us. Duh, I guess he fooled us all. He is so brilliant.

    1. The tool for addressing an errant SCOTUS is impeachment and conviction. There should be no more than three Justices – one to decide and two others to divulge and vote on the incapacity of the one deciding. The SCOTUS is sworn to support the Constitution as written. The SCOTUS does not need the ability to cogitate or deliberate. It only needs the skill to read.

      Lincoln had no power to deny constitutional secession, conduct war, suspend Habeas Corpus or issue proclamations. His successors had no power to forcibly impose the “Reconstruction Amendments” in the post-war environment of brutal military occupation and oppression. Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bush and Obama had no constitutional authority to impose the Fed Act or taxation for compulsory charity, redistribution of wealth or to impose laws and programs of social engineering.

      None of the American welfare state is constitutional and all of it should have been struck down by the SCOTUS or its members impeached and convicted for dereliction, abuse of power and usurpation of power.
      The problem is that the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have ignored and nullified the Constitution with impunity since Lincoln (Marx 1849, Lincoln 1860). Not impeaching a guilty justice must become an impeachable offense. The Constitution is only as strong as the support it gets from the three branches. Without that support, communists have conquered America.

      Spend some time with Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment, wherein the right to private property is not qualified and is, therefore, absolute, providing Congress no power whatsoever to “claim or exercise dominion over,” said, private property. Congress has the power to tax for ONLY “…general (ALL) Welfare…” ;and to regulate only the value of money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces.

    1. Trump referred to John Bolton as “Mike Bolton”.
      Trump referred to Tim Cook at “Tim Apple”.

      Both candidates have misspoken.

    1. He did not lie. He really believes that it’s true. This is the scary part. Oh well it’s almost Holloween. Let’s hide in the chain saws and cast our vote.


    Professor Turley tells us that polls are negative on ‘court packing’. But polls are also negative on Trump filling Ginsberg’s seat (which Turley fails to mention).

    In Donald Trump we have an impeached president who lost the Popular Vote by a margin of 2%. What’s more, virtually every current poll indicates Trump will lose his reelection bid. Polls also show that Republicans stand a good chance of losing the Senate.

    So one can easily ask why a lame duck President and lame duck Senate should have the right to force a Supreme Court Justice on the country whose politics are most likely out of step with the majority of people.

    The ABC NEWS link below (from Sept 25) tells us that 57% of Americans think Ginsberg’s seat should be filled by the ‘next’ president. Only 38% think Trump should fill it.


      Anonymous is absolutely brilliant and, of course, the idiots who read his bull—- are Mensa candidates; the intellectual elite.

      1. Ginsburg said the President is President for four years, not three. Ginsburg is a hero to the left except when she’s not a hero to the left. I thought that every word from her mouth was a saintly utterance.

      2. ABC NEW POLL

        Who gives a —-?

        Turnout in 1788 was 11.6 by design.

        Vote criteria in 1788 were: Male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

        So-called “democracies” since inception in Greece were restricted-vote republics.

        America has been destroyed by one man, one vote democrazy.

        “the people are nothing but a great beast…

        I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

        “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

        “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

        – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

        Thou Shalt Not Covet

        Thou Shalt Not Steal

        In a nation of representative governance, representation begins at home with the votes of men representing their families. Women vote and the American fertility rate goes into a “death spiral” The population is imported. America is dying.

        Anti-American communists have allowed the invasion to increase the votes of deleterious parasites, there being no future in parasitism – the vote is polluted, chaos ensues, out of chaos, order, the order of dictatorship.

        America must be reset and restarted from square one which will be messy.

    2. The ony poll that can do that is the upcoming election followed by following The Constitution OR and Amendment to The Co;nstitution. Persons who rely on BS generally are more full of it than Citizens and the sources listed are hardly objective or for that matter have absolutely no voting rights. Did you ever see an ABC vote?

  9. Considering that the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution as EQUAL to Congress and the Executive Branch, I don’t see how Democrats can change it other than perhaps changing the number of justices. FDR tried that but it didn’t work, primarily because conservative Democrats opposed it. Of course, there no longer are conservative Democrats. What Democrats really want to do is abolish the Constitution, which is nothing new. Woodrow Wilson detested the Constitution and wanted to do away with it too. Either way, this country is in trouble if Biden is elected and Democrats take both houses. However, that may not happen. The most recent poll (Rasmussen) shows Trump with a one-point national lead. We’ll see.

    1. and that does not count the Independents the unaffiliated self governing Citizens and their like minded similar thinkers who in 2016 provided 40% of the nations validated vote in the only valid election. Which to suprise the untrained was not the race for President per se but the votes for the Electors. which wiped out the large population states and gave each nation state one vote per Representative and one per Senator. If you can’t make on those odds then change your name to Vodka Girl Clinton,

  10. All he can do is ask the Congress and if he isn’t in office it will get Trumped! Now who was the most unsuccessful in court packing?

    It wasn’t a Republican.

    “But the norm held. Roosevelt’s court-packing plan faced greater opposition than any other initiative undertaken during his presidency. It was opposed not only by Republicans but by the press, prominent lawyers and judges, and a surprisingly large number of fellow Democrats. Within months, the proposal was dead—killed by a Congress dominated by Roosevelt’s own party. Even amid a crisis as profound as the Great Depression, the system of checks and balances had worked.

    Levitsky, Steven. How Democracies Die (p. 119). Crown/Archetype. Kindle Edition.Note”

    Levitsky is a die hard leftist who admits up front they aren’t Democratic but are full on socialists and then tries to make it look better. Which did surprise me . But I do, unlike the socialist regressive left read both sides and go back in history.

  11. ” 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. “ Same for other attacks on the integrity of the court.

    Would not such types of law be deemed unconstitutional by the court?

    1. They’re not. The authority to specify a court’s jurisdiction is right there in Article I in black letters.

      1. Congress can’t strip the state courts of jurisdiction, and with no topics subject to “exclusive” US jurisdiction, the state courts will have jurisdiction over federal questions.

        1. the state courts will have jurisdiction over federal questions

          No clue where you came by this idea.

      2. “They’re not. The authority to specify a court’s jurisdiction is right there in Article I in black letters.”

        My copy of the Constitution has only black letters so perhaps you can point directly towards the clause that you are referring to. I suspect you might be pointing to Article 1 Section 1. If so you can explain your position limiting the discussion to just one item stated below since I was including the bunch Turley discussed.

        There is overlap between the three branches of government so when we are dealing with overlap I don’t know that case law has settled any of the issues. Madison discussed this problem at length stating ““[e]xperience has instructed us that no skill in the science of government has yet been able to discriminate and define, with sufficient certainty, its three great provinces—the legislative, executive, and judiciary. . . . Questions daily occur in the course of practice . . . which puzzle the greatest adepts in political science.”

        Let me not manage all issues as a group and take just one so we have a distinct issue at hand and don’t end up all over the place, “supermajority voting”. We can deal with the other issues separately. My point is that we don’t know the limits of congressional power. You seem to be saying the opposite when it comes to ways Congress can change the court.

Leave a Reply