We recently discussed the controversial commission created by President Joe Biden to discuss calls to pack the Supreme Court as well as a number of truly looney ideas for circumventing or reducing the authority of the Court’s conservative majority. Some members however decided not to wait even for a commission that is itself packed with liberal members. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-NY, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others will be announcing their plan to immediately add four new justices to the Court. The number is calculated purely to give liberals a 7-6 majority on the Court. It is about a subtle as a B-52 run.
Many of us have discussed the expansion of the Supreme Court through the years. 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.
The bill today strips away any pretense of principle. It is pure unadulterated court packing. It is the very proposal denounced by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she died. Recently, Justice Stephen Breyer wanted against the move. 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.)
With the opposition of justices like Ginsburg and Breyer (and presumably the majority if not the unanimous Court), this is nothing short of a hostile takeover. It would reduce the Court to a glorified FCC with life tenure.
The chances of succeeding in this ignoble goal are low. However, the real question is how many Democratic senators and House members will step forward today to denounce such raw court packing. These politicians often decry what they view as attacks on the rule of law. Well, this is not just an attack but a virtual declaration of war on the rule of law. If Democrats just add members to give them a controlling majority, the Supreme Court will have little authority or integrity. It will become the manufactured majority of a party with a razor thin control of Congress of two seats in the House and a 50-50 split in the Senate.
I am particularly disappointed to see Nadler in this group. I never imagined that I would see the day that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would step forward to call for raw court packing. It is a sign of our current political environment where rage overwhelms reason.
Ad hominem is not argument.
I have had a few of my posts “censored”. I received a polite email from darren that this is typically done by wordpress filters that seek to limit spam and vulgarity and copyright violations.
He advised me how to simply correct my post to avoid the WP filter, and i have had no problem since.
I have seen no evidence that Daren actually censors anything.
“The purposeful failure of the McConnel GOP majority to advise and consent – that means a hearing and a vote – is a matter of constitutional law”
Nope. The senate stalled on a supreme court nominee of John Quincy Adams – the 6th president of the united states.
President Tyler set the record for the longest that the senate sat on a nominee without acting – 835 days – 2 1/2 years.
There is no constitutional issue at all here.
There is no “mandate” for the senate to hold hearings or vote, and they have NOT done so many many many times.
The Senate has allowed who bureau’s of the federal govenrment to become inopperable as a consequence of failure to hold hearings on nominees – and SCOTUS has repeatedly confirmed that as constitutional.
Turley is ignoring nothing.
If you wish to argue that the Senate has been wrong for 250 years – go for it.
If you wish to argue that SCOTUS has wrongly decided the constitutionality of this – go for it.
But you are fighting a very steep uphill battle.
Without a 2/3rds majority of the States it will never pass under the existing Supreme Court which is another reason to continue dumping the fascist left. They don’t follow our constitution because they are NOT Citizens.
The ironic thing is that when Republicans nominate “conservative justices” one never knows how they may vote on given issues. Justice Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are living proof. Alito, Thomas are pretty consistent on most issues and one can make fairly reliable predictions on how they may vote. Bryer, Sotomayor and Kagan are very predictable. They will always take the “liberal, progressive position. Show me one case where they have not. I don’t think it can be shown because it does not exist. If let’s say congress passes a law to ban “so called assault rifles.” I know exactly how Bryer, Kagan and Sotomayor will vote. They will uphold the ban. You know it, I know it and every person in this country with any intelligence knows it too. I have no idea how Kavanaugh would vote but I suspect he would lean towards upholding the ban. Alito is an unknown and I say this because he hails from a gun ban state and has grown up with an anti-gun message blasted at him by his States politicians. Thomas would probably vote that it is un=constitutional, Gorsuch is an unknow in my book as is Coney-Barrett. Roberts will side with the liberals…..To that I have no doubt. How is that for predictions….?