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.
One law to federalize state elections. One piece of legislation for DC statehood. Several attempts to abolish the filibuster. A campaign to pack the Supreme Court.
Turning America into a Banana Republic? Priceless.
President Joe Biden, the great “healer” of a divided nation. Unity!
Mr. Turley, I did not see your recommendation regarding a gradual expansion of the court. Why do you think that would be a good idea? Would portions of the Court hear cases rather than an en banc court of 15?
You say you’re surprised to hear Jerry Nailer supporting this move. Why? Jerry Nadler never has had nor will he ever have any integrity. He is simply a thug.
“like cockroaches, they need to be completely eradicated.”
Something the Nazis said about the Jews, and the Hutus said about the Tutsis. Listen to yourself and think about the kinds of acts that kind of language leads to. Then choose not to think and speak this way.
Does Anonymous feel the same way about the other authoritarian measures being pushed by the “Democrats?” If not, then go back to your coddled corner.
If you do not want violent extremist rhetoric – then do not use violent extremist rhetoric yourself and better still do not do violent extremist things.
It is even the discussion of violations of the norms, of destroying the rule of law that risk driving people to real violence.
It is self evident that those on the left beleive they are ENTITLED to get whatever they want – no matter what.
That they will use arguments like democracy – when that suits – but in the end they will use “any means necescary”.
While I would not use language like “eradicate like cockroaches” – it is still clear that this lawless conduct must not only be STOPPED, but “punished”.
Regardless, say you succeed in this nonsense – then the next time republicans are in power – why should they not engage in equally egregious conduct ?
The rule of law is NOT about “political advantage”.
What has always been true but is increasingly self evident is that the left does not act to secure the rights of the people, but to secure its own power.
One way or the other that ends badly.
So House Committee Chair, Fat Jerry Nadler has about 5 judges on his short list?
The Criminal Liberals’ SCORCHED EARTH Policy… it is only going to get worse until they are finally removed.
I don’t think it will pass. I think it is just a red herring, designed to take everyone’s mind off the real horror HR-1. The Federal voting bill that would keep Democrats like AOC, and the rest of the far left crazies, in power forever. And, let’s not forget that there is a bill to make D.C. (and probably Hawaii next), a State.
“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.”
Glad Dems are seeking bipartisanship and following your advice, Jon. Keep up the good work.
EB
EB, please learn to read and notice that Turley said it would occur over many years, not 4 (the exact amount needed for a majority) at one time with a split Congress. Come on, do better. This isn’t supposed to be a place for morons with banal arguments. Comments like yours really cheapens the discussion.
I quoted Turley, which actually is required on this issue, not only in general but specifically in this article as well because he’s talking out of both side of his mouth. Do you know the exact details of what will come from looking into expanding the court from Biden? No, you don’t. For all you know, the recommendation will not be one iota different from what Turley suggested years back. Other than he suggested it during times when dems weren’t in power at the time he suggested it.
Not that I mind seeing your panties get all up in a twist over this. It’s quite entertaining, actually.
EB
Snarky comment, EB!
I love when quoting someone’s words is considered snarky. So thank you!
EB
We might as well be in Myanmar. The last time the Democrat Party put America first was when it prevented FDR from packing the Court.
Oh my, a multi-tooled player. Misunderstands the history of both her own country and that of Myanmar.
EB
EB – Your snarky replies say a lot about your character and your lack of regard for other people. Something that seems very common in Democrats.
carpslaw, there are at least as many snarky replies from conservatives in the comments on JT’s columns. It’s as common in Republicans and Independents as in Democrats.
Hearing of your displeasure with me just breaks my heart, Carpslaw.
EB
How so ?
This is my point of many of your comments.
What is your argument here ?
I am serious. What is it that the poster does not understand about US history ?
What is it they do not understand about myanmar ?
And I am ignoring the fact that you are once again engaged in mind reading.
Regardless – if you have something informative to offer – say it.
I might be interested in your argument regarding past US and myanmar history – if you actually made and argument.
Otherwise your comment is meaningless.
I can only answer the wording that I’m answering, it’s rather obvious what i was saying (or “arguing”). No, we shouldn’t rather be in Myanmar, there are drasitc differences between events there and here in the present moment. And the last time the Democratic party put country first wasn’t dating back to the days of FDR. Both statements are wildly wrong. And not only wrong, but they’re such sweeping generalizations it would be impossible to “argue” counter points to them without venturing into the same sort of defocused and essentially meaningless word salads you’re so adept at.
EB
“I can only answer the wording that I’m answering,”
Not true, and irrelevant. You made a list of broad and unspecific claims – but provided no evidence.
You were not even specific as to the errors you claim.
It is not enough to say “your always wrong” – when it is unclear what you are refering to.
“it’s rather obvious what i was saying (or “arguing”).”
Not it was not.
All that was obvious was that you did not like the position you were responding to.
Why ? Make an actual argument.
While you may be free to do as you please, why should you be taken seriously if you can not make an argument ?
“No, we shouldn’t rather be in Myanmar, there are drasitc differences between events there and here in the present moment.”
There are. There are also similarities.
Again – can we dispense with the broad and non-specific claims.
“And the last time the Democratic party put country first wasn’t dating back to the days of FDR.”
If I said that (and I doubt I did) – that was an error. FDR did not put the country first. But some democrats since have.
Aside from his problems dealing with Iran – Carter was actually an excellent president. Much of the “reagan revolution” started with Carter.
Clinton was a despicable person. He was also pretty bad at foreign policy. But he was pretty good domestically.
And frankly he left the democratic party much stronger than he received it. But democrats have wallowed since.
“Both statements are wildly wrong. And not only wrong, but they’re such sweeping generalizations it would be impossible to “argue” counter points to them without venturing into the same sort of defocused and essentially meaningless word salads you’re so adept at.”
You talk about “word salad” – read your own post – or just the quote about.
You argue – but you do not say anything.
Make an actual argument – who knows, I or others might actually agree with some of it.
Regardless, a real discussion with facts, logic, reason, would be illuminating for all.
IF my responses to you lack specifics – that is because YOU provide none.
Regardless, my replies to your posts are not “defocused” or “essentially meaningless”.
They are a plea for YOU to actually say something meaningful.
We can debate something substantive or I can point out the innanity and meaninglessness of your posts – YOUR choice.
“You talk about “word salad” – read your own post”
Take your own advice.
I did not raise the word salad issue.
Take YOUR own advice
Democrats trying to pass HR1, which will give the federal government power to override state voting laws. Democrats packing the Court to give them a clear advantage when their unconstitutional laws come before it. Democrats trashing the police on spurious claims of racism. Democrats trying to make DC and Puerto Rico states. And Democrats colluding with Big Tech to silence opposing voices. Sounds a lot like fascism American style. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck….
The problem with HR1 is not that it interferes with the states.
It is that it corrupts the election process and increases the likelyhood of fraud.
While there are some subtle differences between congresses role in electing the president and its role in other federal elections,
the constitution does afford congress some power.
Further there is a legitimate argument that atleast some election standards should be uniform.
28 states have required secret ballots in their state constitutions.
The requirement for secret ballots should be federal law – if not constitutional.
The same is true of voter ID.
Even issues like absentee ballots and early voting are arguably things that shgould be standardized nationally – atleast for national elections.
But HR1 is not about election integrity – except in the sense that it destroys it.
It is about political advantage.
There is a huge difference between
“this law is for the benefit of the country”
and
“this law is for the benefit of our political party”
We expect political parties to seek partisan advantage – in campaigns.
But the ultimate objective is not to perpetuate power but to serve the country.
This is being labeled as a “power grab” it’s far worse and dangerous to what we once called the United States of America. Now the question, how long will Americans put up with this group?
I wouldn’t expect anything less from Nadler, Markey, or the others of their ilk. I seriously doubt if there are any D’s that would dare oppose the proposal in the House, given the monolithic thinking there. One hopes that some sanity will show itself in the Senate
Nadler is 100% a political hack who also has no brains. No one should be surprised by his actions.
Dems in the House fear Pelosi’s wrath. Republicans do not fear McCarthy. Pelosi in a recent comment described herself as a tough “street fighter” –armed with her 4-inch stiletto heels. How many of those Dems fear the wrath of Pelosi? All of them.
Pelosi was referring to how she would protect herself against the “insurrectionists” — that is, IF she didn’t have her own personal security force.
Disappointed in Nadler, really Jonnathan?
over the last four years Nadler has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he is an unethical partisan hack and will do anything to promote the power of Democrats in Washington DC, truth and facts be damned. This “pure unadulterated court packing” move is right up Nadler’s alley.
There’s nothing surprising here. The dems broadcasted repeatedly what they were going to do if they gained power and they’re doing it with efficiency. The repubs have mounted no resistance to this onslaught, nor to the stolen election, and the SC had a constitutional role to play before the transition of power and abdicated that responsibility.
The SC didn’t abdicate. You just dislike their decision.
One cannot argue a case before fifteen judges.
Nine is correct. The right and left on the court hardly exists.
Thanks for your incisive perspecuity, truly a joy to read your articles and the purity of love of law for law’s sake
We can’t have a Liberal contradicting the hive mind. As the Red Queen would say, OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
The DC Democrats are irretrievably broken with reality.
Once again I must ask, after the past four years (some would argue a great deal longer) how can anyone not see the Democratic party doesn’t have a shred of ethics remaining and have gone absolutely mad? None of this should be a surprise to *anyone*. It’s still not too late, either, but naptime is unequivocally over.
The GOP doesn’t have any more ethics than the Democrats.
The scum (again) show their colors.
Pure partisanship on this and many other issues.
These people have proven that they will do any damage to the country in order to further their agenda.
Disgusting people.
Remember, it was Biden, in his better days, that said Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court was a stupid idea? I guess in his latter years he forgot what he said…so sad.
😂😂😂. Even though he has been reminded on a regular basis!
Guess the Dims don’t own a history book or remember FDR. Nobody admires a crook who keeps making the same mistake over and over again.
President Joe Biden chose to hang a large portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt above the fireplace in the Oval Office. What does that tell us?
Everything we need to know. Is it next to his portrait of Methuselah? Or by the clown artwork?
Across the Oval office behind Biden’s desk, he prominently displays a picture of himself with Pope Francis, to signal what a devout Catholic he is. Hint for Joe Biden: there is no such thing as a pro-abortion devout Catholic.
Biden is pro-choice, not “pro-abortion.” Do you understand the difference?
I don’t. That is semantics.The results are the same.
No, the results are not the same. If you’re pro-choice, you’d be totally fine with no one ever choosing to have an abortion. If you’re pro-abortion, you actively want women to have abortions. Very few people are pro-abortion.
You can certainly say that devout Catholics aren’t supposed to be pro-choice either. But Pope Francis’s views are more complex –
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2020/12/pope-francis-once-again-enters-abortion-debate-in-argentina/
For Biden to say that a human being, Vlad Putin, has no soul also doesn’t accord with Catholic doctrine. It’s demonization and dehumanization.
Anony:
There’s that one pic with Hitler and “Bishop of the Reich,” Abbot Schachleitner, shaking hands that has the same sort of ring to it! Each year, Pope Pius XII had German Cardinal Bertram write to Hitler: “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany” and added with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.”
Same sorta sick hypocrisy. The Church never personally excommunicated Hitler.