Is Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Packed To Fail?

Below is my column in The Hill on President Joe Biden’s Commission on the Supreme Court.  While the composition of the makeup of the Commission is now known, the true purpose of the Commission remains in doubt. While the Commission is likely to make recommendations for “reforms,” the genesis of the Commission was to consider the court packing scheme that was widely discussed during the 2020 presidential election.  Biden precisely called court packing a “bone headed” and “terrible, terrible idea.” However, he was not willing to confront extreme voices in his own party and this Commission is the result. The hope of many in Washington is that this Commission will give the Administration cover in setting aside the demands to add new members in the short term to create a liberal majority on the Court. If this largely liberal commission recommends against court packing, Biden and the Democratic leadership could shrug and say “well., we tried.”  The question is whether the Commission will feel the pressure to come up with some alternative substantial recommended change. Over 20 years ago, I recommended the expansion of the Court to 17 or 19 members. However, that recommendation would occur over many years and would not give advocates the short-term majority that they are seeking. That is the difference between reforming and packing the Court. Even a gradual increase would also face considerable opposition in the Senate, particularly out of a lack of trust that a later majority would add a couple of justices and then renege on continued additions to continue to control the majority of the Court.  Even former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid warned against term limits or seeking to expand the Supreme Court as a dangerous path for Democrats.

Here is the column:

With the establishment of his commission to study the possible packing of the Supreme Court, President Biden has adjoined his name to one of the most inglorious efforts of Franklin Roosevelt. Court packing has long been anathema in the United States, and polls have consistently shown the vast majority of Americans oppose the idea. Biden himself once denounced it as a “boneheaded” idea, but that was back in 1983, when there remained a real space in politics for at least the pretense of principle.

Now Biden and others seem to think the Supreme Court must be canceled for its failure to yield to the demands of our age of rage. Many of us were surprised when he pandered to court packing calls in the 2020 primaries. Some of us have called for expanding the court over a lengthy transitional period, but commentators and some Democrats called for an immediate infusion of new justices to give liberals the controlling majority. Unhappy with conservative rulings, Democrats demanded that the Supreme Court be replaced by a much larger and more reliably liberal body.

Washington already looks like many of our campuses, where opposition of such liberal measures results in isolation and condemnation. Take Justice Stephen Breyer. One would think he would be immune from the mob as one of the most consistently liberal justices in our history. However, this week Breyer warned against any move to expand the Supreme Court. He also rejected the characterization of the current Court as “conservative” or ideologically rigid. Breyer was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news host Mehdi Hasan who called him “naive” and called for his retirement. Demand Justice, a liberal group calling for court packing, had a billboard truck in Washington the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” Demand Justice once employed White House press secretary Jen Psaki as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of its voting projects.

The commission is an ominous sign that Biden may be offering up the last institution immune from our impulsive politics. Its composition also seems to confirm the worst expectations. Indeed, it is a lesson in how to pack a body. The group is technically bipartisan but is far from balanced. Only a handful of the 36 members are considered center-to-right academics. (Even that is still a better showing of intellectual diversity than most of the faculties of the represented schools, which have few if any conservative or libertarian faculty members.) Liberals make up the vast majority on the commission, and some have been outspoken critics of Republicans and the conservative Supreme Court majority.

The commission rapporteur, who is tasked with publishing the final report after 180 days of study about the Supreme Court, is University of Michigan professor Kate Andrias, one of 500 academics who called for the rejection of Brett Kavanaugh. One commission chair, Yale University professor and former Justice Department official Cristina Rodriguez, had also signed the public letter against Kavanaugh. The other commission chair is New York University professor and past White House counsel Bob Bauer.

The commission includes such individuals as Harvard University professor Laurence Tribe, who called Donald Trump a “terrorist” and has a history of personal and vulgar attacks on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and others, myself included, who maintain views that he opposes. Tribe once ridiculed former Attorney General William Barr for his Catholic faith. The only ire Tribe has drawn from the left, however, was when he referred to the possible selection of an African American like then Senator Kamala Harris to be vice president as mere “cosmetics” for the party.

Tribe has not been subtle about his sudden interest in court packing. After the election he declared, “The time is overdue for a seriously considered plan of action from those of us who believe McConnell and Republicans, abetted by and abetting the Trump movement, have prioritized expansion of their own power over the safeguarding of our American democracy and the protection of the most vulnerable who are among us.”

Another Harvard University professor put it in more direct terms. Michael Klarman declared the refusal of Senate Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland as a justice in 2016 was itself court packing. He said, “Democrats are not initiating this spiral. They are simply responding in kind.” He added that Democrats should not worry about Republicans responding with their own court packing when they return to power. Instead, Klarman insisted, Democrats could change the system with a manufactured liberal majority to ensure that Republicans “will never win another election.”

The only hope is that this commission is so lopsided that it is clearly not intended to be a credible basis for a court packing proposal. While the group has many respected and thoughtful academics, its composition is unlikely to sway many conservatives or even some moderates. Rather, it could be an effort to defuse the left while sentencing the court packing scheme to death by commission, a favorite lethal practice in Washington. Commissions are Washington’s great vast wasteland where controversies are often sent to perish with time and exposure.

The Commission is set to consider a litany of truly looney ideas to prevent the conservative majority from deciding cases, including creating a new specialized court or limiting jurisdiction to remove certain cases from their docket.  There are also calls for term limits — a proposal that could trigger potential constitutional questions absent a constitutional amendment.  Term and age limits have long been discussed and many argue that (so long as the justices are sent to lower federal court) the limitations do not contravene the life tenure provision of Article III.

If this is the case, the timing is right. The announcement came almost to the day of the anniversary of the 1937 decision where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a minimum wage bill, breaking the voting bloc against the New Deal. Indeed, Contemporary observers paraphrased Benjamin Franklin to describe the decision as a “switch in time” that saved nine because the shift with the Supreme Court majority was what defused the demands for packing the bench beyond its nine members.

This commission could now be a “switch in time” moment for Biden. The hope is that he does not have the courage to simply repeat his past view that court packing remains a “boneheaded” idea but that he can assemble an overwhelmingly liberal commission to effectively kill the scheme. After all, 180 days is not much time to reinvent the Supreme Court, but it is just enough time to give the pretense of an effort to do so. Unfortunately, that is the closest we get to principled government today. But in this instance, the Commission just may be a “hitch in time” that saves nine.

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

139 thoughts on “Is Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Packed To Fail?”

  1. Jonathan: This is your second column attacking Biden’s Commission on the Supreme Court. This time because of the predominantly “liberal” composition of the Commission that you fear will recommend “court packing” of the Court with “liberal” Justices. Who are some of the members you object to? “Liberals” like Cristine Rodriguez, Bob Bauer who criticized some of Trump’s previous Court nominees. And you single out for criticism your long time nemesis Lawrence Trible, who you accuse of vulgar criticisms of former president Trump and your good friend William Barr. You accuse Tribe because he “once ridiculed former Attorney General William Barr for his Catholic faith”. Then you claim Tribe has a “history of personal and vulgar attacks” on McConnell and you, of all people. No place for such a man on Biden’s Commission! Professor. Tribe has been a frequent and vocal critic of Trump, McConnell and Barr–especially the latter for turning the DOJ into Trump’s personal law firm. A lot of lawyers and law professors have criticized Trump/Barr for this very reason. So what? Should that automatically disqualify Tribe or others from being named to the Commission? Frankly, I think it’s all sour grapes that you protest so loudly. Tribe got on the Commission but you were bypassed — I mean the pre-imminent conservative legal scholar in this country. I think if it had been me to choose I would have put you on the Commission just to not have to keep hearing your constant complaining!

    1. I doubt that law professors or other lawyers consider Turley “the pre-imminent conservative legal scholar in this country.”

      1. What is it that conservatives conserve?

        The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        What is it that liberals liberate?

        America from the Constitution and Bill of Rights…

        and into the Communist Manifesto.

  2. The fact that the socialist far left is even trying to make an end run around The Constitution should be grounds for impeachment or just expelling every one who vote for this socialist crap.

      1. It doesn’t, but the educated mind knows what was in the thoughts of those who wrote and signed the Constitution. I am sure trolls existed then but I doubt they were as noticeable as they are today. Trolls demonstrate their ignorance almost every single time they comment.

  3. Easy answer he can’t do that. He can be stopped by the Supreme Court itself as they did to FDR during WWII and it must be sent to the people of the States for a 2/3rds approval. It may not be done as if it is a insignificant bill. Iif they say that they can be ignored the left tha tis for one again lying. Same deal as Obama trying to make deals called Paris this and Tokyo that. those are treaties and require advise and consent of the Senate.

    this is nothing more than the socialist party trying to ignore OUR Constitution and should be grounds for impeachment.

  4. The American people have three radical right-wing judges shoved onto the Court by an illegitimate POTUS who cheated his way into the White House, aided and abetted by a Republican Senatorial majority, the product of gerrymandering. Republicans are, and have increasingly been, the minority in this country. The previous, legally-elected POTUS nominated a quality candidate that the Republicans refused to even call for a vote.

    And now, we have Turley, complaining because someone is even considering a way to make the SCOTUS more reflective of the values and beliefs of the American people? Hey Turley: there’s no law or provision of the Constitution requiring 9 judges, and there have been different numbers over the years.

      1. Not gerrymandering, but Republicans increased their representation by splitting the Dakota territory into 2 states instead of admitting it as 1 state.

      2. By drawing districts such that the candidate (Republican, of course), chooses his/her voters, instead of the other way around. Look it up.

        1. Hmm, so the district of Wyoming, or Texas, or South Dakota for instance? So according to you, the GOP gerrymandered districts so they could pick their voters. And because of that, they won the popular vote in a statewide election. Where would I need to look it up to discover how this is happening? Venezuela, China? I’d guess California, but I live here in an allegedly GOP “gerrymandered” district and gosh darn it, we’re still stuck with Feinstein.

    1. “And now, we have Turley, complaining because someone is even considering a way to make the SCOTUS more reflective of the values and beliefs of the American people? ”

      Especially in light of the fact that, in the past, he’s written about expanding the court.

    2. Coney, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are centrist judges at the moment and may well drift further to the left. You are nuts, Natasha.

    3. “The American people have three radical right-wing judges shoved onto the Court by an illegitimate POTUS who cheated his way into the White House, aided and abetted by a Republican Senatorial majority, the product of gerrymandering.”

      Fact Check: False.

      It was the Obama administration that said it out loud: they depend on “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the voters” and a corrupt complicit media — to ram their agenda through. Here we go again.

      Natacha is Exhibit A.

  5. I’m not sure why increasing the size of the court from 9 to 19 would change anything. Assuming an equal split for the moment (9 liberal, 9 conservative), cases would still be decided by a majority of one. Moreover, if two judges could be appointed every four years, for example, and either party controlled Congress for more than two terms, then appointments could result in a majority, liberal or conservative, large enough to control the court for a considerable period.

    1. This depends upon how the justices are chosen and one would suspect that the choices would be stacked to change the orientation of the court. In the Campaign Buttigieg repeatedly called for court packing. The formula he proposed was identical to what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela. That was the cornerstone of Chavez basically destroying the democracy in Venezuela. He would exceed his presidential powers repeatedly and then encourage his opponents to take him to court. The supreme court would change the laws in their decisions to advantage Chavez. Buttigieg as the son of a Marxist professor no doubt is quite aware of this. As Chavez put it repeatedly “For my friends everything ….. for my enemies ….The Law”.

  6. Well, as this author proposes, we should consider going in the other direction.

    The larger the number of justices, the greater the temptation of the Court to think and function as a kind of legislature. Instead of exercising judgment, it will inevitably become preoccupied with balancing interests, splitting differences, concocting compromises, and in effect legislating.
    https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/04/unpacking-supreme-court-chuck-chalberg.html?mc_cid=57a2c363f3

    1. Most of the Circuit courts have more than 9 judges (179 judges on 13 Circuit courts). They often hear cases in panels, but sometimes hear them en banc.

      1. Most of the Circuit courts have more than 9 judges (179 judges on 13 Circuit courts).

        Thank you. Had I thought of that, I would’ve included that in support of my linked comment that The larger the number of justices, the greater the temptation of the Court to think and function as a kind of legislature.

          1. The point being made by the author is that a court will be more likely to consider the case before them, not necessarily from a constitutional perspective, but rather a purely ideological perspective. The lower courts have proven this time and again. We saw them being used most recently during the Trump administration as roadblock to his policies. Some were legitimate, others overturned. I can see why this would be tempting. There is no real consequence for judges that legislate from the bench other than jeopardizing getting on the short list for SCOTUS. Look at how Congress functions. The more populous House is far more likely to create ridiculous bills that are checked by the “sober”, smaller, deliberative body in the Senate. Perhaps you can get a better answer from the author.

    1. My bad! *Censored* is what I meant to say. I love that I’ve been censored so many times in the land of free speech academic dialogue. Totally awesome.

      EB

      1. EB, censored? By Turley? Gasp! Turley is involved in the destruction of free speech? No.

        If the liability protections republicans want repealed you could sue Turley for violating your free speech rights. Oh the irony.

        1. “If the liability protections republicans want repealed you could sue Turley for violating your free speech rights. “

          Svelaz, tell us how? You obviously don’t know much about this topic or the law.

          SM

          1. S. Meyer, Really? You’ve been squawking about repealing section 230 liability protections for big tech so they could be sued for what commenters say or that their first amendment rights are being violated because they won’t post their messages for the world to see.

            Here Turley is censoring a poster for using acronyms. Anonymous EB could sue for exactly the same thing Turley claims shouldn’t be censored. I thought you were smart.

            1. Svelaz, God did not provide you the needed essentials to be on a list of this nature.Section 230 isn’t relevant to this blog.

              SM

              1. “Section 230 isn’t relevant to this blog.”

                Allan, you again demonstrate your tendency to insult other people with descriptions that better describe you.

                “Section 230 protects Internet intermediaries—individuals, companies, and organizations that provide a platform for others to share speech and content over the Internet. Yes, this includes social networks like Facebook, video platforms like YouTube, news sites, blogs, and other websites that allow comments. It also protects educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.”
                https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually

                1. “Allan, you again demonstrate your tendency to insult other people with descriptions that better describe you.”

                  +100

                    1. “Grow up.”

                      Why would you say something like that. I pointed out that some use pretend rodents to pat themselves on the back. Don’t you think they are the ones that should “Grow-up”?

              1. No one said he is, William. Section 230 also applies to blogs. JT cannot be sued for the content of our comments.

                1. The crux of the issue (that you apparently don’t understand) is censorship of various viewpoints and how section 230 might indirectly be providing a government work around for the first amendment.

                  JT’s censorship for the most part is done by Word Press. Where he or his agent censors does not seem to have significant bias.

                  Of course you could provide proof that there is bias, but you just want to be significant. You are not interested in providing any proof for your point of view. You figure if you can damage something of use to others, that makes you significant.

                    1. There are automatic filters in Word Press so that certain words and phrases will not be accepted along with providing more than two Links. It also sometimes locks people out with no reason and states the response is awaiting moderators approval. These things occur too fast for human censoring.

                      There is your proof.

                      You have made yourself even less significant and demonstrated a Stupid streak that seems to grow instead of shrink.

                    2. We all know — most of us, anyway — that WordPress blocks certain comments.

                      Other comments are manually deleted.

                      The ones that are manually deleted are the ones that should concern us.

                    3. Apparently, anonymous you didn’t think of those things because your intent was to diss on the professor. He’s a big target, Status, highly, educated, intelligent with tremendous abilities all things you wish you had. Therefore to make yourself significant you try and tear Turley down instead of doing the hard work of trying to work your way up. Stop trying to be significant. Stop trolling.

                  1. “JT’s censorship for the most part is done by Word Press. Where he or his agent censors does not seem to have significant bias.”

                    lol

                    In point of fact, S. Meyer is just guessing.

                    He has no proof. He pretends to be in the know…

                    1. If you want to act dumb, act dumb. I know that from experience. They don’t have a human censor placing an immediate note that the moderator will have to look at what you wrote. They don’t have a human censor that recognizes an inappropriate word immediately. They don’t have a human censor that all of a sudden won’t post what one writes. They don’t have a human censor to withhold on one blog anything that is written from a particular op-ed yet permit it to be posted elsewhere or with a different address if other material is added.

                      I don’t know why you wish to sound more Stupid than you already are.

                    2. S. Meyer said: “I don’t know why you wish to sound more Stupid than you already are.”

                      S. Meyer needs to take his own words to heart.

                    3. Anonymous you really are sounding Stupid. I explained to you why I thought word press was significantly responsible for a lot of problems. Then there is the crazy anonymous continuous postings that are really Stupid. I can’t find any reason for this blog to keep that nonsense. Sometimes Darren reposts things that had too many links, a censored word, or just a dropped posting that everyone knows about. That is why I think you are being a bit Stupid.

                      I’m posting this as anonymous since it deserves to be in the trash like all other anonymous postings.

                    4. “In point of fact, S. Meyer is just guessing.”

                      Guessing, babbling, and not making any sense.

                    5. Another Stupid comment anonymous that should be trashed along with this one.

                    6. S. Meyer says the following, apparently to himself:

                      “If you want to act dumb, act dumb.”

  7. Perhaps the one and only benefit of Biden being elected president after so many years in politics is that voters have now learned, the hard way, that just because a politician was reasonably centrist in his younger days doesn’t mean he will be that way when he’s elderly.

  8. I was hoping Biden might be more centrist, but that is not happening at all, and the most generous interpretation is that this commission’s job is to sell court packing. Look at it this way:
    If Biden really wanted to bury the issue, he would NOT have put a 180-day limit on it.
    If he really wanted to bury the issue, he would NOT have dominated the commission with extremists.
    If he really wanted to bury the issue, he would have given conservatives a fighting chance.

    The other purpose of the commission is to give Democrats plausible deniability if the hard sell backfires (which it might). Biden did learn something from the Clarence Thomas hearings. Always have a fall guy. That’s why they hired Tony Bobulinski, but Tony figured it out and kept the emails. I’m sure Joe learned from that, too. Hunter won’t be the Whitehouse liaison.

    In normal times, this “commission” would be a target-rich environment for conservatives, but this is the Dorsey-Zuckerberg-CNN-YouTube era. They’ll ramp up deplatforming and censorship like we’ve never seen before. The next two years will be a battle that will make the 2020 election look like a slumber party.

    1. “I was hoping Biden might be more centrist”

      Diogenes, that is a reasonable desire, but it was highly improbable. The control of the Democrat Party power is split into the Far left and the Far left with each jockeying for position as Republicans make sure their ties are of the right length and their shoes are polished.

      1. I see now that you’re right, Allan. Biden has defrauded centrism his whole political career. I strongly suspect Justice Clarence Thomas would agree.

        1. Thanks. You are just a good person and assume slime can suddenly turn good. I am more accustomed to slime turning worse like it did when Hitler was put in power.

    2. Moderate Joe Biden no longer exists. The Biden occupying the White House is BINO; Biden in name only. I understand politicians will evolve on issues over their “careers”, but doing a 180 on serious constitutional issues is not evolving. Biden is merely functioning as the ink in the Leftist’s pen; as the voice to the Leftist’s microphone and he’s on the clock. My guess is he was promised the presidency as a parting gift as long as he devoted the last 100 days of his career to this Leftist agenda. This is elder abuse and it’s destroying this country.

  9. One can hope that Biden fills his term
    I can’t dream of the Vice President have anything to to other than the “warm spit” made famous by John Nance Garner.

  10. The commission is an ominous sign that Biden may be offering up the last institution immune from our impulsive politics.

    Ominous, you say. With our military is going “woke,” the targeting of the 2nd amendment, HR1 and adding two new states, what could possibly go wrong with a commission “packed” with scholars of a “living” constitution reviewing our judiciary? Of course none of them will be on the short list for nomination to an expanded court, right?

  11. “Professor” Tribe’s bloviating about “safeguarding of our American democracy” rings a little hollow, don’t you think?

  12. How about any change to the composition to the Supreme Court will only be effective when the party not in power obtains power? In this case any change that Biden/Shumer propose will only be effective when there is a Republican in the White House and a Republican controlled Senate. Simple way to ensure the changes are not purely political.

  13. I agree with President Biden that this is a bone-headed idea.

    One of the things that has been fairly consistent about the United States is the rule of law. Most of those laws have stood the test of time, and remain central to our society. However, we seem to encounter periods within our history when certain politicians and activists want to overturn our entire system just to inflict their harmful ways upon everybody else. This is one of those ideas.

    I appreciate that you have identified several of the worst miscreants in this current battle. I have noted over time that many liberals want to give up on trying to win over the hearts and minds of their fellow countrymen and would prefer instead to utilize brute force to implement their ideas. If they can’t win an election, they’ll instead try to overturn the election. Yes, even former President Trump tried this; it failed. I don’t need to list the many other attempts by challengers to overthrow elections, some of whom succeeded. I will take note of the benighted member of Harvard’s faculty who suggested changing the rules so Republicans can never win another election.

    And I won’t bother to comment on the absurdity of having Laurence Tribe anywhere near a law book, except to say that he is a disgrace to the legal profession and a permanent stain on Harvard.

    1. I have noted over time that many liberals want to give up on trying to win over the hearts and minds of their fellow countrymen and would prefer instead to utilize brute force to implement their ideas.

      This is the core truth.
      Democrats fail at free and open debate. Their biggest problem is the constant use of situational ethics in their positions.

      Court packing a great example. Every single person that has an opinion about this “commission” would be against it, if Clinton’s wife would have defeated President Trump. That’s the tell, that exposes the lefts hypocrisy.

      1. “This is the core truth.
        Democrats fail at free and open debate. “

        Of course they fail. Just look at the lack of solid debate by those on the left even here on the blog.

        It’s hard to advance a dream when one is awake.

        1. S. Meyer, what “lack of solid debate” are you talking about. Most people agree that expanding the court is a good idea, even Turley agrees.

          Because Republican literally stole a seat for the Supreme Court and blatantly flaunted precedent, they are now complaining about “power grabs” and “brute force”. Republicans can only blame themselves for this situation. As it is always the case in our constitutional republic. The party in power makes the rules. Republicans lost their majority. Now they have to deal with the consequences of their loss. Just as democrats had to when they were not in the majority.

          1. Most people agree that expanding the court is a good idea, even Turley agrees.

            Most of “what” people are your referring to? The last I checked, around 35% approve.

            1. Diogenes, most does not mean a majority. According to you 35% can be construed as “most”.

              Mitch McConnell, declared during the last year of the Obama administration that Supreme Court justices should not be appointed during an election year. But he clearly violated that claim himself when Justice Ginsberg died.

              It demonstrated that republicans did not care about what was right or honoring precedent. They forced their will on everyone. Now that democrats are in control they can unilaterally increase the size of the Supreme Court because Mitch McConnell showed all of us that the party in power makes the rules. Republicans have no real argument here.

              1. Huh? Most does not mean a majority? Then what in the he!! is your point? That a minority of the country supports expanding the court?

                1. Diogenes, just most people. Why is that so hard to grasp? How do you quantify,” most”? It’s that new alternative fact definition championed by Trump.

                  1. FYI. You’re replying to OLLY, not Diogenes.

                    So the fact you’re living in an alternative fact world, would make your Trump attribution also, an alternative fact. You would be better advised to just put the shovel down at this point.

            1. Diogenes, I’ve never changed my username, unlike most of the conservative posters here who constantly change them.

          2. “Most people agree that expanding the court is a good idea,”

            Prove it Svalez. As usual that will silence you.

            Democrats are responsible. Harry Reid opened the doors, but you don’t seem to understand the difference between Harry Reid’s poor judgement and what is being considered today. I don’t expect you to understand that difference.

            I won’t bother troubling your mind about the effects of politicizing the Supreme Court so that it changes from one administration to the next based on expansions of the court. You only understand power and the ability to destroy. You don’t know how to build.

            SM

            1. S. Meyer, more than a quart of American agree that it is a good idea to expand the Supreme Court. Even Turley agrees.

              Diogenes pointed out the proof you want up thread.

              Mitch McConnell is the one responsible for creating this problem. He’s the one who masterminded the theft of a Supreme Court seat by not voting on whether to confirm or deny Obama’s pick. His excuse was no Supreme Court Justice should be picked in an election year. Last year Mitch blatantly rammed thru in an election year a Supreme Court pick. Democrats have every right to expand the Supreme Court because they are now the ones making the rules. Republicans have no say. They are dealing with the consequences of their own behavior. Too bad.

              1. “S. Meyer, more than a quart of American agree that it is a good idea to expand the Supreme Court.”

                That is not the same as “Most people agree “.

                You have no credibility.

                “Mitch McConnell is the one responsible for creating this problem.”

                You are stuck in ignorance. Mc.Connell’s action followed Reid’s actions, so one has to apportion the blame mostly to Democrats.

                IQ can be calculated in many ways. It doesn’t have to rely on a strong understanding of one language. It can use logical relationships. Based on what you have been saying you would have a low IQ. You have little understanding of logical relationships and little desire to learn.

                SM

                1. S. Meyer, so if Mitch McConnell did it because Harry Reid did it it’s still ok to do it again because Mitch did. So because it was Mitch McConnell’s fault last time democrats can do it this time.

                  Hey if you want to me to bring it down to your level I’m perfectly fine with that. It’s easier to explain things to you using 5grade logic.

                  1. “S. Meyer, so if Mitch McConnell did it because Harry Reid did it it’s still ok to do it again “

                    I can’t believe I am debating an illiterate. Why don’t you read what was said:

                    >>”“Mitch McConnell is the one responsible for creating this problem.”

                    >You are stuck in ignorance. Mc.Connell’s action followed Reid’s actions, so one has to apportion the blame mostly to Democrats.”

                    Svelaz, Two wrongs don’t make a right but when apportioning the guilt, the Democrats hold the bulk of it.

                    I provided you with a 5th grade explanation but even that was too much for your puny brain.

                    SM

                    1. “I provided you with a 5th grade explanation but even that was too much for your puny brain.

                      SM”

                      SM, the insufferable, just can’t help himself. It’s truly unbecoming.

              2. more than a quart of American agree that it is a good idea to expand the Supreme Court.

                That would mean less than 3 quarts 😉 of America disagree that it is a good idea to expand the Supreme Court. Is this a common core math problem? I was publicly-school trained in the 60’s and 70’s to do math the old fashioned way. So by my calculations, 3/4ish is more than 1/4ish.

    2. “I have noted over time that many liberals want to give up on trying to win over the hearts and minds of their fellow countrymen and would prefer instead to utilize brute force to implement their ideas.”

      And I’ve noted the same for conservatives.

  14. SCOTUS already leans left with Roberts at the helm…the Floyd trial has 1 judge…if a citizen commits the most heinous crime there is still only 1 judge plus a jury…FDR tried to pack the court and failed…because of the polarization now nobody gets a fair trial anyway…JT pick any odd number 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,…up to 99…in this country it’s only my 1 vote that counts…do you really think 17 or 19 will make the decision more fair?…today it’s all political…a fair trial no longer exists in my opinion.

    1. Turley sure loves to dance around when it comes to his prior position about increasing the number of justices. If Biden and the democrats choose to increase the size of the court they sure can start with just two more justices and let the next administration choose two more.

      Turley seems to deliberately overlook Mitch McConnell’s own court packing schemes which are clearly more deliberate. Turley’s blind eye towards that unmistakable action leaves his criticism about Biden pretty hollow.

    2. SCOTUS already leans left with Roberts at the helm…the Floyd trial has 1 judge…if a citizen commits the most heinous crime there is still only 1 judge plus a jury

      I see this repeatedly. Its stupid, Stop it.

      Criminal and civil judges mediate the judicial, adversarial system of justice. These judges decide single point of law, taylored to the very specific moment in the trial, basing their decisions on appellate court precedent.
      SCOTUS studies and rules on the constitutionality of legislation, from the appellate perspective. The roles of the two systems share nothing other than the term ‘Judge’ Appellate courts are 3 judge panels.

Leave a Reply