Hostile Takeover: Democrats To Introduce Bill To Pack The Supreme Court

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.

424 thoughts on “Hostile Takeover: Democrats To Introduce Bill To Pack The Supreme Court”

  1. Dispensing of the Rule of Law is not something the public as a whole wants to see. What will be interesting to note is which Democrats oppose this attempt, which wait for popular support to oppose it and which support the bill.

    In Nazi Germany, opposition to Hitler did not get the mass it needed to keep him in check and those opposing Hitler came too late.

    We are watching the potential collapse of a Republic that survived over 200 years.

    1. Historically change happens slowly – Except when it happens rapidly.

      My crystal ball is not showing me a clear vision of the future.

      But it is telling me that the left’s destruction of norms, of the checks and guide rails will likely result in rapid change – and ultimately not favorable to them.

      You reference Hitler – familiarity with Hitler’s rise to power is instructive.

      It was accomplished much as the left is gaining power right now. By a combiniation of a weak state, lawlessness, people begging for salvation, calculated uses of political power, chaos and violence.

      1. My crystal ball is not showing me a clear vision of the future.

        Rest assured however, their is a clear vision for the future. This publication lays out it’s origin and the future for western civilization, if we fail to understand it. Look no further than President Trump to understand how to combat it. Whether he understood the Left philosophically, or he was being advised by those that did, his MAGA movement continues to be an existential threat to their plans. That’s why he and all his followers have been being targeted and continue to be targeted today.

        It comes down to this: Because Hegel cannot be severed from Marx, analysis of the Left cannot be severed from Hegel. Analysis of the Left that fails to account for its defining characteristics are ruinously under-inclusive and, hence, existentially flawed. For analysis of the Left to be relevant, it must assess whether America has reached the point where abuse of language has transitioned to the violent abuse of power constituting an existential threat that has become a clear and present danger. The current language of political discourse in America, which is characterized as variations on “liberal”, is not even structured to recognize, let alone address, the scope and magnitude of the menace that this current archaic rhetoric masks. As it stands, by masking the true language of the Left, the current political rhetoric sustains a dangerous pseudoreality—to our great detriment. The very way we talk about the Left guarantees that we cannot get to it. Somewhere along the line, the dogmatic nihilism of the Left was severed from our analysis of it. Consequently, we have little to no comprehension of it. This renders America situationally unaware of a strategic level political warfare effort that has long since secured the upper hand.
        https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf

        1. Olly,

          I guess I was unclear.

          I do not doubt that many left or right have clear objectives.

          My point is that the nonsense of the left does not work. It will fail. Precisely how it fails and how quickly it fails is not clear.

          Historically change and failure are normally slow. Except when they aren’t.

          The rare instances of rapid change are nearly always failures – often very severe failures.

          I am deeply concerned that the US might be facing rapid failure rather that protracted failure.

          In the normal scheme of things – republicans likely retake the house in 2022.

          In the much rarer situation the Biden administration does not survive to 2024 – and I do not mean that Joe dies.

          I mean government actually fails sufficiently that it can not continue.

          What scares the hell out of democrats is that Jan 6 came remarkably close to that.

          The demands of protestors were simple – do not certify the election and actually audit it.

          Contra democrats – it is protestors that were met with violence.

          They were deprived of their constitutional right to assemble and petition government because democrats unusually locked the capital.
          And the only one murdered was an unarmed protestor.

          Minneapolis is once again burning because a police officer confused a gun with a taser at an otherwise legitimate traffic stop and shot and killed someone with outstanding warrants for violent crimes who resisted arrest.

          In comparison at the capital an unarmed white woman was shot for protesting congress.

          We have huge double standards at play that are obvious to all but the far left.

          Further we have standards that will not work.

          Fine, lets defund the police – and see how well that works.

          We are already seeing a large spike in crime from this nonsense.

          That does not end well.

          But there are reasons to be very concerned.

          One of the reasons for limited government is that in the real world failure is quite common.

          Business failures only harm a few people and they also provide new oportunities.

          Government failures are really really bad.

          We are seeing myriads of government failures concurrently right now.

          Crime in particular is a very big deal. Not only are we seeing crime spike from riots and from demoralized policing and changes in policing policy. but we also have the Biden changes at the border that have drug cartels pushing underage drug soldiers into the country.

          If we have not already we will see increases in gang violence.

          This is all very dangerous. When people do not feel safe – that is when they will turn control over to tyrants who vow to make them safe.
          That is how we got Hitler and Mousolini.

          Regardless, I am not trying to argue that somehow the left will succeed – they wont.

          Only that it is not clear EXACTLY how they will fail.

          The left has created the conductions where rapid change can occur – Change like the actual collapse of government.

          1. My point is that the nonsense of the left does not work. It will fail.

            You’re missing the point; that nonsense has been working as designed for decades. It will continue to succeed as long as we respond according to their plan. Read page of 11 of the document titled A Political Warfare Template to Understanding Current Events.

            The Left will succeed up until the entire system collapses. Failure of the system is their success. That’s when the useful idiots will no longer be needed.
            https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf

            By the way, it would be great if this author was completely wrong, but it’s been pretty accurate so far.

            1. “You’re missing the point; that nonsense has been working as designed for decades. It will continue to succeed as long as we respond according to their plan.”

              I do not disagree that the left has been working at this for decades.
              Nor that they have had some POLITICAL success.

              But leftism does not work in the real world.

              Biden is already off to an incredibly rough start as president.
              If we had an hones press – 25% of the country would not approve of him.
              Of course if we had an honest press – he never would have been elected.

              Regardless, the question is not will all of this fail – but how badly and how quickly.

              “The Left will succeed up until the entire system collapses. Failure of the system is their success. That’s when the useful idiots will no longer be needed.”

              Possibly. The entire system may collapse. Or some lessor failure that drives the left out.

              As noted – my crystal ball is not so clear as to see exactly how things will fail.

              But they will fail.

              I do not think that the democratic party has the ability to hold together.

              It is a joint venture of three unlikely allies – the nut case left, The uber rich and big tech, and actual liberals like Turley.

              The first two are near certain to shiv each other at some point, and the last is likely to flea in disgust.

              Regardless, while failure in government has really bad consequences – I am not all that afraid of failure.

              Failure is an inherent part of free markets. It is how the dead wood gets cleared.

              Obama was not nearly as bad a president as Biden has been thus far – and Trump’s election was a rejection of Obama.

              1. But leftism does not work in the real world.

                That depends on one’s perspective. There are effectively 3 groups in this equation.

                1st – A tiny minority orchestrating the Marxist agenda. What they’re selling doesn’t work and that’s why they are selling it. They will be what’s left in power if they succeed.

                2 – A larger, but still minority that understands how that agenda works and where it will lead us if we don’t stop it. They are immediate threats to the Leftist’s agenda, especially if they have any possibility of influence over those in group 3.

                3 – the last group are the large majority playing a role pre-planned by the first group. Even those that love our existing system, warts and all, are responding according to the agenda.

                Group 1 succeeds with the support of useful idiots in group 3. Those idiots will never become part of group 1.

                Group 2 succeeds when those in group 3 move to group 2. Group 2 grew during the Trump term. This is why group 1 has panicked and are now desperately working to fundamentally transform our system before group 2 becomes dominant.

        1. Are you unable to deal with symbols or metaphor ?

          I have never claimed to be prescient – to be able to clearly see the future.

          My predictions here and elsewhere in life have been poor overall.

          That said they have been better than the so called experts.

          Predicting the future is difficult. If I was good at it, I would be Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos.

          I am not, and you can’t even muster up an identify.

          But grasping that we are in uncharted territory, that with all to many things we have substantailly gone beyond the normal slow failure of leftism to the real possibility of sudden unpredictable rapid failure.

          Mostly I do not think that is likely – the odds still favor slow failure over rapid failure – but too many things are far outside what we know.

          As an example
          Nearly all economists are predicting inflation – some are predicting stagflation, a few are predicting hyper inflation.
          But a small few are predicting that the Fed will manage to keep everything tightly controlled – until things reach a tipping point and then we will see a collapse worse than 1929. And a few actually predict everything will be fine.

          But no one knows – not the experts. And we know much more about the economy than we do about say Covid.

          1. It’s a good thing you’re not a prognosticator because you’re almost always flagrantly wrong.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid can’t help himself. He has nothing to say so in order to make himself appear significant he does exactly that. He then complains that others don’t give him credit for his intelligence. Snapping at ankles like a dog doesn’t demonstrate intelligence.

                He applauded Cuomo for killing those seniors and now he sleeps with his Cuomo doll holding an Emmy.

            1. Then you would be able to identify my errors.

              I would list yours – except you post as anonymous – so you have no history.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. The Criminal Liberals’ SCORCHED EARTH Policy… it is only going to get worse until they are finally removed.

  6. 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.

  7. “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

    1. 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.

      1. 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

    1. Oh my, a multi-tooled player. Misunderstands the history of both her own country and that of Myanmar.

      EB

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

      2. 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.

        1. 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

          1. “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.

  8. 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….

    1. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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

    1. Nadler is 100% a political hack who also has no brains. No one should be surprised by his actions.

    2. 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.

      1. Pelosi was referring to how she would protect herself against the “insurrectionists” — that is, IF she didn’t have her own personal security force.

  11. 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.

    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.

  12. 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.

  13. One cannot argue a case before fifteen judges.
    Nine is correct. The right and left on the court hardly exists.

  14. Thanks for your incisive perspecuity, truly a joy to read your articles and the purity of love of law for law’s sake

  15. 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.”

    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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

    1. 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.

  18. 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.

    1. 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?

        1. 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.

              1. 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/

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

Leave a Reply