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. “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.”
    After his actions in the last 4 years, nothing that Rep.J.Nadler does surprises me. Can’t be disappointed when you realize he has no respect for the Constitution nor at least 1/2 of the citizens of this country.

    1. There are democrats I have some respect for.

      The best I can say of Nadler is that he is not the worst of congressional democrats.

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
      – Mark Twain

  2. Jonathan Turley, years ago:

    August 18, 2007

    July 19, 2005 Tuesday

    Expanding the Supreme Court

    https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/expanding-the-supreme-court/

    HEADLINE: To Improve the Supreme Court, Let’s Expand It

    For the past four weeks, Senators and commentators have often used the most apocalyptic terms to describe the potential nomination of a rigid conservative to succeed Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Supreme Court’s perennial swing voter.

    While many have called on the appointment of an O’Connor clone, there has been no discussion of the danger of a court that invests such power in so few jurists. As we prepare for another bloodletting over the nomination of a new justice, Members, particularly in the House, should pause to consider whether it is time to consider long-overdue reforms of the court. Specifically, we should consider adding not one but 10 new justices to the court.

    While the public views the court as an inviolate and revered institution, various academics have called for a range of reforms, from term limits for justices to limitations on their jurisdiction. Years ago, I suggested expanding the current number of Supreme Court justices to 19 members. This proposal was based on the view that our court is demonstrably and dysfunctionally too small.

    The proposal to expand the court often prompts easy analogies to the court-packing scheme of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in retaliation for the thwarting of his New Deal programs. Yet, it is possible that Roosevelt had the right idea for the wrong reason.

    The current number of justices was arrived at not by some profound design but was a virtually arbitrary number that reflected the earlier number of federal circuits – a number that has since expanded by 50 percent.

    Today’s court actually bears little resemblance in its size or powers to the original court created by the Framers. Indeed, when the United States Supreme Court first convened in 1790 in New York at the Royal Exchange Building, only two of six justices were present and it had no cases on its docket. The early court was smaller and its members actively “rode circuits” to hear appeals and even sit on some trials.

    The current court shows the problems with a small Supreme Court. With justices living longer, the court is prone to stagnation, and presidents often face “feast or famine” periods on nominations. Many presidents have had none, while others, such as President William Howard Taft, have had four. President Bush easily could have three or more.

    The result is that the court often has remained unchanged as society has changed. Roosevelt inherited the Hughes court, a court composed of elderly, Republican appointees disinclined to support New Deal reforms. (Hughes himself had previously left the court to run for president as a Republican.) Bush could now ultimately create a similar court filled with ultra-conservative baby-boomers who could remain to the right of society for decades to come.

    Unfortunately, this is a concern that tends to motivate only the party in the minority. I should point out that I first suggested the expansion of the court when we had a Democratic president and Senate. We now have the opposite. Yet, we continue to go through these convulsions on nominations due to the unwise investment of great power in so few individuals.

    The expansion of the court is not as radical an idea as it may seem. From the time of its establishment, the size of the Supreme Court was largely dictated by the number of lower courts. As new states were added to the Union and the population grew, new trial courts and circuit courts were created – and new justices added. For example, when a 10th circuit was added in 1863, a 10th justice was added at the same time. When the circuits were reduced in 1866, the number of justices was reduced. Ultimately, the creation of the current nine-number court in 1869 was part of a Congressional decision to create parity with the number of circuits.

    While O’Connor’s career is being celebrated in the aftermath of her resignation, she actually personifies the inherent flaws in the current court. The Supreme Court’s past decade has been shaped largely by its ubiquitous 5-4 votes and wild swings of doctrine. As a result, the most important questions have been effectively left to a court of one: O’Connor (and to a lesser extent, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy).

    This stagnant division is due to the slow rate of turnover on the court. The current court is close to a record length of time without a change in membership. It has been more than 11 years since Justice Stephen Breyer was added to the court – the longest such period since 1823. This relative stagnation is likely to continue with the increase in the lifespan of all Americans.

    The benefits of expanding the court to 19 members are multifold. Consider just a few:

    Expansion would reduce the likelihood of a single swing voter: The Court of One problem. While splits on larger appellate circuits do occur, it is less common for a single justice to be a swing vote on many issues.

    Expansion would reduce the relative weight of individual justices and increase the likelihood of diversity in views on given subjects.

    Expansion would reduce drafting time and likely increase the number of cases being heard.

    Expansion could allow for justices to return to hearing cases. One or two justices each year would have to apply some of the doctrines that they pass down and, in doing so, deal with the inconsistencies produced by their decisions.

    Expansion would bring administrative advantages. A 19-member court would be slightly larger than the number of federal circuits, ending the practice of assigning some justices to more than one circuit, which creates an uncomfortable concentration of authority in individual justices.

    Most importantly, the expansion would guarantee a more steady turnover of members, bringing new faces and views to the court. Each president can be expected to have at least one appointment, reflecting the contemporary political values that led to their election.

    Of course, it would be improper for one president to appoint all 10 new members. Accordingly, the proposal allows for a phased expansion that adds the seats over a long period.

    The slavish adherence to a nine-member court shows the triumph of tradition as a self-perpetuating value. It is time to test the current model on its own merits, not on its familiarity. The number of Supreme Court justices, like the number of Members of Congress, should be a natural subject for occasional revision. It is time to allow logic, not tradition, to take its natural course.

    — Jonathan Turley

  3. ‘Question for Rep. Hank Johnson: if you add four more justices to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t it tip over?’

    @joelpollak

  4. To offer alternatives is to admitt SCOTUS needs tweeking. It does not.
    But.
    Insty had a suggestion years ago that each State should pick one. So 59

    Then rotate responsibilities, so no claimant would not know who would be on the 9 member panel that would decide to grant cert, and who hear the case.
    That eliminates DC power and spreads it back to the states, were it belongs.

    alternately, if we need 4 new, just allow each Presidential term the power to appoint 1. If it goes over Nine, the longest serving would move to senior status,(ifhe wanted to). He could join majority or minority opinions, but not vote. He would also be available to break ties in the event of recusals, or death.

    Both of these solutions would address the phony issues raised by the Dems, but does nothing to entrench power.

    1. How long would it take for Dems to complain that allowing each state to pick 1 would favor the red states over the blue, therefore it must be equal to the apportionment of House seats. After reaching that lofty number, the next “logical” suggestion would be to allow all residents of the U.S. to have a seat on the court through direct popular vote on all issues that reach the S.C.

  5. I picture “Idiocracy 2” doing well in the theaters. It can open with a shot of a 379 member Supreme Court. They can call it “Idiocracy 2; Standing Room Only”.

  6. If it passed both houses and gains a President’s signature it still means nothing without being sent to the States for a two thirds majority and that’s assuming it passes the Supreme Court to begin with. They are getting into areas now that are core Constitution which the socialists always ignore and for the most part the Supreme Court always upholds unlike the yellow berets of the Pentagon. I am glad I am not part of the chicken spitz in todays military.

    1. It’s not an amendment process. it is only needs an Act passed by Congress & signed by the President. In 1937, the 24th Congress expanded the Supreme Court to a Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices. It was Signed by Pres. Andrew Jackson.

    1. No need to get the job done. The founders did it already and the Supreme Court did it again when they kicked FDRs attempt in the backside. That goes for today’s crop of egg sucking dog liberals disguising their socialist heritage as something to do with a Democracy and failing miserably. The socialists have NOTHING to do with either a Republic nor a Democracy and for sure nothing to do with a Constitution.

      1. Micheal – unfortunately “packing the supreme court” is not unconstitutional.

        When FDR tried to do it – Democrats int he senate stopped him – not the supreme court.

        If we are going to make constitutional arguments that require sticking to the text of the constitution – we must be correct about them.

        Packing the supreme court is a mistake – it is an act that will increase political instability and destabalize the country.
        But it is constitutional.

    2. Turley was wrong then and continues to be wrong now.

      There is a plausible argument for an actual appelate court of last resort – between the federal circuit courts of appeals and the supreme court.

      But SCOTUS is not the US court of last resort.
      Its fundimental purpose is the final roadblock short of revolution (insurrection to lefties) to uphold the constitution and protect individual liberty.

      That purpose does not even need 9 justices – 3, 5, 7 would be sufficient.

      1. Actually the Supreme Court IS the US court of last resort. There’s nothing higher after that. A revolution or insurrection isn’t an option just because a small group of people are upset about something they don’t like.

        Court packing has already been done by republicans with the lower courts thanks to Mitch McConnell. It was a deliberate intent. Turley’s criticism that court packing is wrong because democrats are doing it without mentioning Mitch McConnell’s own court packing schemes is purely hypocritical drivel.

        1. “Actually the Supreme Court IS the US court of last resort. There’s nothing higher after that.”

          False BOTH ways.
          SCOTUS is not obligated to take cases – and should not take cases – even wrongly decided ones that are not significant constitutional or legal issues that need resolving. So the Supreme court is NOT the US court of last resort.

          As to what is higher – read the declaration of independence.

          “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”

          “A revolution or insurrection isn’t an option just because a small group of people are upset about something they don’t like.”
          Of course it is an option.

          “Court packing has already been done by republicans with the lower courts thanks to Mitch McConnell.”
          Not court packing.

          “It was a deliberate intent.”
          Of course it was. Obama deliberately intended to put Garland on the court.
          McConnell and Grassley and other republicans deliberately intended to wait and see if a republican would win the election.

          Everything associated with the nomination and appointment of a supreme fourt justice is deliberate and intentional.

          You constantly use innocent words as if they are malevolent.

          I will further cede that McConnell’s actions were blatantly political.
          But they were also completely inside the norms for US supreme court appointments.
          Actually packing the court is constitutional, but it is way outside the norms.

          Regardless – go ahead. I am not stopping you. I am warning you that like myriads of similar actions democrats have taken this will backfire. Merely discussing this will backfire.
          But keep it up.

          “Turley’s criticism that court packing is wrong because democrats are doing it without mentioning Mitch McConnell’s own court packing schemes is purely hypocritical drivel.”
          False.

          False equivalence – you are comparing apples and oranges.
          And false because you are demanding that Turley compare apples to oranges.

  7. Natasha is obviously one of the most intelligent posters here, as she recognizes that the SCOTUS must be transformed into an engine of leftist legislation from the bench immediately. Leftist cable news commentators agree, and we should not question the wisdom of their mandates. I would further recommend that all current members of the SCOTUS resign upon the passage of the court packing bill, so that President Biden can select his own 17-19 justices of the newly designated SCOTUS, with the option to reappoint some of the current justices; provided, of course, that their political legislation predilections are consistent with those of the President. My only bone to pick is that the SCOTUS should be expanded to 21 justices, as there is something magical about the number 21.

    1. J Feldman: you must believe that the majority of the American people are “leftist”. If you believe this and that being “leftist” is bad, why don’t you move to another country that isn’t so “leftist”?

      The truth is, most Americans do not share the values or beliefs of the last 3 appointees on major issues, like abortion, civil rights and civil liberties. Why should the court of last resort in this country have the deck stacked against the views and values of most citizens? The last 3 appointees got there by someone whose occupation of the White House was illegitimate or by McConnell playing politics. Most Americans didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, didn’t approve of him for over 4 years, and didn’t vote for him in 2020. They did vote for Obama, and his nominee was not even allowed a vote. It’s not right.

      1. On the contrary, I agree 100% with you, as we need to establish an autocratic state run by an elite group of billionaires and technocrats who will make all decisions for the population. This will ensure social justice for all.

        1. “It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”

          – James Carville
          _____________

          You don’t get it. You fail to understand the American Founders.

          The autocratic, democratic, republican, democrat and any other states, including any votes in one political direction or another are all moot.

          The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals while it severely limits and restricts government; anybody’s government.

          The singular American failure has been and continues to be that of the grossly derelict Supreme Court and the remainder of the judicial branch.
          _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

          The entire communistic American welfare state cannot exist because it is unconstitutional, including but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

          Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general* Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.

          Government exists to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

          Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
          __________________________________________________________

          * In a word, general means all.

          Merriam-Webster

          general adjective

          gen·​er·​al | \ ˈjen-rəl
          , ˈje-nə- \
          Definition of general

          (Entry 1 of 2)
          1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
          2 : involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group the general equation of a straight line

      2. “The truth is, most Americans do not share the values or beliefs of the last 3 appointees on major issues, like abortion, civil rights and civil liberties.”

        They do not ?

        According to MSNBC HuffPo/YouGove 60% of americans oppose abortion after 20weeks of pregnancy. While only 30% favored it.

        I have no clue what you mean by Civil rights and civil liberties – I doubt it is what most people think.

        California dropped efforts to put restoring affirmative action back on the ballot recently – when there was not sufficient support.

        Most people agree with Justice Roberts – “the way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race”

        And what is it that you think is a civil liberty ? And why would anyone think that you had a clue what ordinary people think ?

        Finally – we do not decide rights democratically – that is precisely why we are a republic, and have a constitution and supreme court.
        If we determined rights democratically – then all acts of congress would be constitutional and no supreme court would be necescary.

        “Why should the court of last resort in this country have the deck stacked against the views and values of most citizens?”

        The Supreme court is not the court of last resort – nor should it be. It is not an appelate court in the traditional sense.

        I am opposed to even Turley’s Court packing plan – But Turley does badly address a real need.

        There should be a federal appeals court of “last resort” between circuit federal appeals courts and the supreme court.

        The fundimental purpose of the supreme court is the last firewall against revolution with respect to the constitutionality of law and the reach of federal power.

        The Supreme court is not there to resolve contract disputes. It is not their to right every legal wrong.

        It is there to speak with authority about issues of constitutional importance.

        It is there to be the last protector of individual rights.

        “The last 3 appointees got there by someone whose occupation of the White House was illegitimate or by McConnell playing politics.”

        Trump won the election in 2016. There is no doubt of that. All the russia collusion delusion nonsense have been ACTUALLY debunked – as opposed to the left wing nut Russia conspriacy theories – such as the election nonsense you are selling – or that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, Or that the Biden families messy conduct is “russian disinformation”

        Absolutely McConnell was “playing politics” – but fully inside of 250 years of Senate norms on supreme court appointments.
        Conversely this would only be the 2nd time stacking the courts was tried – Both times by Democrats. The first failed – because even democrats at the time could not choke it down.

        But go ahead – Stack the court. All you will have done is assured that every time elections flip political power that the entirety of government will change.

        YouGov found that support for leftist court packing was barely above 1/3 of people. With fully half opposed.

        So go ahead. Keep doing stupid things.

        “Most Americans didn’t vote for Trump in 2016”
        So what ? that is not how we have ever elected presidents.

        “didn’t approve of him for over 4 years,”
        Biden is currently -7 Strongly Approve/Strongly disapprove – should we remove him ?

        “and didn’t vote for him in 2020.”
        We know that the Trump voters were legitimate – the overwhelming majority of them voted on election day in person.

        We have no idea even today how many Biden votes were real. YOU had the opportunity to audit the election – to verify the votes.
        You failed to do so – we still have almost 400K more votes in 6 states than we have people who voted. That might be error but it is a strong indicia of fraud – and you refused to check it out.

        The Left;’s Trump illegitamcy nonsense was eventually debunked – the only russian collusion was with Clinton.

        The legitimacy of Biden will likely remain forever in doubt – because YOU refused to look into allegations of massive fraud in a lawless election.

        Atleast 4 courts have now found that election officials acted lawlessly in 2020. In addition several state house or senate committes have also found lawless actions by state election officials. In addition to 1000+ sworn affadavits – there are now several instances where people – sometimes election officials have sworn to having directly observed election fraud in person.

        “They did vote for Obama”
        Democrats love to talk about Voter suppression – yet Obama beat Romney in 2012 through massive voters suppression.
        Because that is exactly what negative campaign adds are. Obama was able to get about 2.5M republicans in key states to stay home.
        Not only did Trump win in 2016 – but he would have beaten Obama in 2016 – the left likes to claim 2016 was close – they forget tht Trump moved almost 3M voters in swing states to vote for him.

        “and his nominee was not even allowed a vote. It’s not right.”
        And you get to vote about that every 6 years when you vote for your senator.

        Your the one who beleives in democracy – aren’t you ?

        I would note that with democrats controlling congress – lots of things will not get a vote.

        It is highly unlikely that there will be any democrat immigration reform bill voted on.

        Democrats like illegal immigration exactly as it is – illegal and massive. But they do not have the courage to make it legal.

    2. Personally, I think their current proposal of 13 is a much more apt choice, being that 13 is held by popular superstition worldwide to be a portent of doom, Which is exactly what this partisan expansion would mean for the standing of the Supreme Court. The logical end to this (after numerous swings in party rule upping the number of justices each time) would be making every person living in the U.S. a member of the court, reducing the U.S. to the tyranny of the mob the founders feared and the leftists desire.

  8. On the few occasions I have attended a proceeding in a court of law, there was but ONE judge presiding over the case, just like, oh, say, there is but ONE President and there is but ONE Speaker of the House and there is but ONE Leader in the Senate and there is but ONE Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and there is but one School Principal and there is but ONE CEO of Apple, etc., etc., etc.

    In my experience, ONE judge that a defendant disagreed with was upheld on appeal by but ONE superior judge.

    The court of appeals and corrective action for the Chief Justice is impeachment and conviction, the process of which must be streamlined and accelerated.

    The sole reason to seat more than one Justice on the Supreme Court is to corrupt it.

    The basis for corruption in the American republic is the elimination of severe vote restrictions, elimination of the dominion of the Constitution, and imposition of anti-Constitutional, anti-American one man, one vote democracy.

    It takes but ONE judge to “…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  9. Turley clams that adding justices would be “nothing short of a hostile take over”. Since going on the payroll of the Hate Network, you’ve become a drama queen, Turley. You want to know what really is a “hostile takeover”? Three judges appointed by an illegitimate POTUS who cheated to get into office with the help of a hostile foreign government, and who lost the popular vote, but got into office anyway due to an antiquated process called the Electoral College, which allows over-representation of smaller states to the detriment of more populous states. How about McConnell refusing to call for a vote for the nomination of Merrick Garland, who was named by a POTUS who didn’t cheat to get into office? The alleged reason was the close proximity of the election, but when the same situation arose while the fat election cheater was still around, that rule was ignored, so we have Covid-Barrett, selected solely for her extreme right-wing ideology. How about Republicans blocking at least 25 witnesses who demanded to be heard about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? Gorsuch occupies the seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland.

    Americans deserve to have important legal questions decided by the court of last resort that reflects the values of all Americans. The current SCOTUS does not, and not because the last 3 who were seated got there fair and square. They were appointed by an illegitimate POTUS and or by rigging the process by McConnell. Leveling the playing field is as American as it gets. Republicans know that their power base is shrinking, and they are desperate to hold onto as much power as possible. Hence, allowing more judges that will dilute their hold on the judiciary is something bad, according to them. We see through this, Turley.

      1. Turley is incorrect – the court should not be expanded at all.

        9 justices is sufficient. I would argue we would get better clearer results with fewer.

        There is however a need for essentially a nationwide “US court of appeals.”

        A layer between the supreme court and lower district appeals courts.

        This is to deal with the case load.

        With few exceptions the Supreme court is there do decide constitutional issues NOT to serve as an appeals or trial court.

        The Supreme court is not there to right all wrongs, it is there to establish the constitutional envelope of government and to protect the rights of citizens.

        It needs to speak with a clear voice, and it needs to be small to do so.

        Turley’s proposal to expand the court is the right answer to the wrong problem.

    1. Going back to the Warren and Burger courts, it has taken 60 years to finally get seated a Court whose majority is encouraging Congress to decide the major policy controversies of our time…..as is the blueprint in the Constitution.

      During the Gorsuch Senate Conformation Hearing, it was amply clear in questioning by Sen. Franken and other Democrats that they want to have an activist Supreme Court to make the most controversial policy calls (abortion, campaign finance, gerrymandering, immigration, voting rights). Gorsuch responded by saying that Congress is the branch of government responsible for making those tough calls. Why? …because Congress is elected by the People. The People, through Congress, decide the biggies.

      But SCOTUS as a 2nd unaccountable legislature is too tempting for the Democrats….there, you can file a lawsuit to obtain policies that DON’T have broad support among the public. There, the leftist elite lawyers of the country can shape policy, without the annoyance of having to run for public office.

      This gambit will not succeed. But, it does tell us much about the Democrats and how phony is the name of their party.

      1. The purpose of SCOTUS is to say NO to government.

        It is not to determine policy.
        It is to determine the constitutionality of laws and regulations.
        And to ensure that law and regulation infringement on liberty is as small as possible and consistent with the constitution.

        The courts do not decide what policy should be. Whether it will work.
        They determine whether it is constitutional.

    2. Nothing but Marxists drivel. The only election fraud that took place was last November with the illegitimate installing of slow Joe and the hoe. Packing the SCOTUS in this way is despicable no matter who attempts to do it.

      1. If these idiots want to politicize the courts – let them.

        If Congress can increase the size of SCOTUS – it can shrink it.

        It can shrink all courts, or expand them.

        While both parties are tried to game the actual rules and law to their benefit – the farther they go the more divided we become the less possible “unity” is.

        “Turn about is fair play” – I do not care if the senate abilishes the filibuster, or congress packs the courts.

        the further the left goes – the better.

        The more egregious they behave – the more people at the center they alienate.
        The more egregious they behave – the quicker they fail and we get back to regular order.

        Packing the court is a stupid idea – if democrats wish to behave stupidly – let them.

        If there are no rules – then their is nothing they do that can not be undone.

        1. “If Congress can increase the size of SCOTUS – it can shrink it.”

          You’re only figuring this out now?

          Congress has increased and decreased the size of SCOTUS in the past. At its largest so far, there were 10 Justices. At its smallest so far, there were 5 Justices.

          “It can shrink all courts, or expand them.”

          Yep. It has already expanded the lower courts many times. There were 28 federal district court judges and no federal appellate judges originally. There are now 673 federal district court judges and 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal with another 179 judges.

          “If there are no rules …”

          The Constitution sets some rules and says that Congress gets to set other rules:

          Article III: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

          “Although the Constitution provides that there shall be ‘one supreme Court,’ it does not specify the High Court’s size or composition. And, while Article I gives Congress the power to ‘constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court,’ the Constitution does not expressly grant Congress the authority to set or modify the size of the Supreme Court. Instead, Congress is understood to possess that power by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allows Congress to legislate as needed to support the exercise its enumerated powers and ‘all other Powers vested by th[e] Constitution in the Government of the United States,’ including those of the judicial branch.”
          https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10562

          1. “You’re only figuring this out now?”

            Nope. There are others hear that have claimed court packing is unconstitutional.

            I have merely claimed it is a bad idea.

            Regardless, I do not need your history lesson to tel me that I am right.

            I would note that SCOTUS has not changed size in a century, and the prior expansions were driven by expansions of the country.

            In the past each justice was the pinnacle of a circuit and actually heard cases within that circuit.
            That has not happened in over a century.

            There is a real need for the equivalent of a federal superior court – subordinate to the supreme court but superior to district courts.

            SCOTUS should not be the court of last resort – it should be the last obstacle to government infringement on liberty short of revolution.

            Its fundimental purpose is constraining government to the constitution – not sorting out winners and losers in specific cases.

            SCOTUS should not hear a case – even if it is wrongly decided unless there is a constitutional issue.

            “Yep. It has already expanded the lower courts many times.”
            This is not about lower courts.

            Regardless, the historic changes you note were driven by the actual expansion of the country – packing the supreme court is a blatantly political step.

            “”If there are no rules …”

            The Constitution sets some rules and says that Congress gets to set other rules:”

            You seem to think this argument is purely about what is constitutional

            Many things that are constitutional are bad ideas. Even many ideas that seem to be good politically are bad politically.

            Lets, be clear – I am not arguing you CAN not do this. I am arguing that it would be a mistake to do so.

            We have seen democrats violate myriads of “rules” in the past – or eliminate them.
            All that was perfectly constitutional.
            That does not make it a good idea.

            AGAIN – I am not making a constitutional argument. There is no doubt at all that democrats can do this constitutionally.
            FDR could have done it constitutionally too.
            It was a bad idea then, and a bad idea now.

            But it appears that the left has the political power to do this. And they can if they want to.

            Doing so will substantially increase what either political party will do if it has the power in the future.

            Democrats have bet several times that republicans would never have the power to do to them, what they did – and they have proven wrong each time.

            BTW – that is actually a given. While I think the stresses in the democratic party are pulling it apart. Political parties do not fail permanently – not without the party in power becoming totalitarian.

            Republicans stole Neo-cons from the democratic party ages ago. More recently they are trading them back – in return for blue collar workers.

            Every party must strive to keep its base narrow enough to be energized and broad enough to win.

            The problem that democrats today face is that if they kowtow too much to their left wing – they will lose not just the center but the center left. Such a loss would REQUIRE democrats to shift to the center – probably fairly substantially – as any shift to the center will lose them lots of votes on the left.

            The point is that parties adapt.

            There are many issues that divide the parties today – that did not divide on party lines in the past, and some where the parties have litterally switched sides. Political parties are not about ideology – they are about power. They will shift in ideology as necescary to hold power.

    3. BEWARE!

      BE FOREWARNED!

      NUTCHACHA cares not for freedom.

      NUTCHACHA cares merely for “free stuff” from the white man’s money.

      NUTCHACHA’s communism is all consuming – a quest of power for power’s sake to compensate for her abject and unmitigable failures in freedom.

      NUTCHACHA is compelled to tilt the playing field in her favor lest she enjoy not a scintilla of success.

        1. You are hilarious in a bad way.

          Can we repeal the welfare state, affirmative action, quotas, unconstitutional and unfair “unfair housing” laws and unconstitutional and discriminatory “non-discrimination” laws, etc., now?

          Can you read the Constitution which holds dominion in the United States of America?

          Can you determine if secession is prohibited and if war may be arbitrarily and irrationally prosecuted against a sovereign foreign nation?

          Did you read the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect in 1863 requiring that freed slaves be immediately deported as illegal aliens due to their inability to comply with said Naturalization Act – can you tell Americans when that “cold case” will ultimately be properly adjudicated and resolved, and when Americans will get their country back from illegal aliens?

          Can you determine from the Constitution if illegal immigration is more or less licit than illegal emigration?

          Can you determine from the Constitution if that document may be amended through the generous and unconstitutional application of brutal military and paramilitary force?

    4. Nutacha – go ahead with all this nonsense.

      Just remember – turn about is fair play.

      When you refuse to follow the laws and norms you can expect that others will also.

      Turley is right – this is a radical step.
      Democrats got pissed over McConnell refusing to confirm Garland – which was fully inside of multi century norms.

      This is not.

      Democrats are behaving as if they have the support of 80% of the country – they do no.

      I beleive Rassmusen has Biden’s strong over/under at -7 right now.
      Biden’s numbers would be far worse – if the media would actually report the news.

      Biden and democrats have been one disaster after another since taking power.
      Either the news will report it – or people will start to feel it directly – rates of violent crime have doubled in the past 9 months in democrat controlled cities. There is no secret why – weakened policing. And yet you are still ranting and raving about the police.

      Recently Ofc. Potter made a fatal mistake on an otherwise reasonable arrest of a criminal try to flea a warrant and resisting arrest.
      There is no racism. Many of us would support firing Potter. But the left wants her head. Why ?
      Duante is atleast partly culpable in his own death – if he did not have outstanding warrants – there would have been no arrest.
      If he had not resisted – there would have been no shooting.

      But the left has turned a simple mistake into days of rioting and looting.

      Would you consider a carreer in law enforcement today ? Would you take a job where an honest mistake dealing with a dangerous criminal could land you in jail ? If you are already an officer – would you think about retiring ? Would you think about taking less risks ?
      Would you think about not working so hard ?

      Are you surprised that violent crime is rising ?

      I am not – it is the direct result of the actions and policies of the left.

      And you make more republicans every day.

      You have a mess at the southern border. Biden tried to pretend the problem away by saying that the “unattended minors” were mostly older – that is right, they mostly are. Central and south american cartels are using Biden’s lax border enforcement to push teenage gang member foot soldiers into the US. You can expect more gang violence from that.

      Left wing nuts rant about gun laws – yet you are actively trying to make the country a dangerous and violent place.

      Worse the horrid conditions you are imposing – are not mostly on the rich who you claim to loath as you siddle up to them.
      But on the poor who you claim to care about.

      With democrats as friends, poor people do not need enemies.

      The media is poorly covering what is happening – do you think the people in violent cities are blind ?

      And at this moment Biden is viewed far more favorably than democrats.

      The current RCP generic ballot is D+3.1 – if that remains Republicans will have a huge surge in 2022.
      Democrats very nearly lost the house in 2020.

      Democrats typically need D+4-6 to hold the house due to the fact that democrats self gerrymander into cities.
      They may need an even higher generic ballot as the polls have had a 4pt error favoring democrats for some time.

    5. Not the cheating nonsense again.

      Was the 2016 election conducted according to the law ?
      Did Russian’s have voting machines ?

      The actual claim that you are making:
      Did not occur
      is not a crime
      can not be prevented
      Favored democrats.

      Can we please get past this nonsense.

      Putin would have been ecstatic to have Clinton as president, as would Xi.
      Both are happy to have Biden.

      Both have become more beligerant since the election – they are very happy to have a weak president who won a lawless bannana republic election.

      Not only are Trump’s judicial apointments legitimate – they are also relatively good.

      What is your problem with Kavanaugh. Barrett and Gorsuch ?
      They try to follow the constitution more than those on the left.
      They do not make things up as they go.

      Over the past decade and a half democrats have increasingly pushed idiotic feel good legislation with the thinest of political power advantage. infringing on peoples rights and hoping it would not blow up in their faces.

      Worse still – democrats will not take on real problems.

      There is clearly an immigration problem. and I am not even talking ideleogy.

      No matter how many or few people we allow into the country – we can not do as we are doing now.

      We have a system of immigration law that we do not enforce.

      If you are going to allow large numbers of south and central americans into the country – then do so honestly – build the wall – to keep criminals. terrorists, and illegals out. Then change the law to allow those you actually want to get in legally to be able to do so.

      Do not just make this all up as you go.

      Joe Biden has been president about 80 days – during that time 165K americans have died of C19 – that is twice the rate under Trump.
      This has occured despite the fact that Trump gave Biden a tool – vaccinations, that Trump did not have.

      We listened to you rant for a year about Covid – Turn about is fair play.

      Biden has blood on his hands – as does Cuomo, and Whitmer, and Newsome, and Wolf and numerous democrats who have failed.

      The country wants to return to normal – one way or another.

      It is increasingly self evident that the “experts” do not know any better than the rest of us.

      If democrats are “the party of science” – it is self evidently the party of BAD science.

    6. The only thing shrinking is your brain, Most Americans support gun ownership, immigration enforcement, freedom of speech, voter ID laws, oppose censorship, violations of religious freedom, sanctuary cities. support the police and the military. You want to talk about illegitimacy-let’s talk about voter fraud in Democratic cities. The Republican base is not shrinking. They control 67 of 99 state legislative chambers, ha29 governorships and are going to to take back Congress in 2022. America has always been a two party country and will always be so. Most Americans do not support the agenda of the left. You need to talk to people outside the sewer holes of the cities, the media and Hollywood. You are uninformed and need to have your uterus checked for brain damage. I suppose you support the Democratic stranglehold in the big ciites-moron.

  10. “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.”

    John, favorable or not favorable to the left is meaningless. Hitler was not favorable for Germany even though he won the election. Many draw up a contract concentrating on all sorts of things with pages and pages of things dictating how things will proceed. What many don’t do is draw up a contract for what happens when the partnership is not working and has to dissolve.

    If one thinks logically one recognizes that if the business is going fine there is almost no need for the partnership to dissolve or even a contract. Neither party wishes to end a profitable adventure, so with or without a contract they will find ways to continue the partnership. However, if the partnership is failing each partner will look for the larger share.

    So it is with our contract, the Constitution. All things have changed since those days creating an electorate where many no longer recognize its value. We have changed from government at the lowest level to government at the highest level which completely changes the dynamics in a negative fashion. The Constitution was based on the population’s moral and intellectual integrity. The left has neither of these values. When dealing with power they will grab the largest share they can without concern for life, liberty or property.

    1. The fundimental issue – both constitutional and moral that the left completely fails to grasp is that

      When we seek to infringe on the liberty of citizens – and all government infringes on the liberty of citizens,

      When we can not agree – we can not use force – government.

      We do not and can not govern by simple majorities.

  11. This further shows that the Dems in Congress would rather have SCOTUS calling the shots on the most contentious policy issues of our times. It is a complete abdication of Article I responsibility under the Constitution.

  12. Everyone knows that committees become unproductive and unmanageable as you add more people beyond about 7 or 8. I think the original size of 6 was decided based upon such a consideration.

    1. One has to consider whether one wants the Supreme Court to be a team or a bureaucracy. From what I have read 5-9 is optimal where 5 might be among the best for such a group. Basketball, 5 Baseball 9. A military squad can be two teams of 4 plus a leader but it can be only 6 members as well. There are many reasons for keeping the numbers down. Squads form platoons, but loyalty to a squad is much greater than loyalty to a platoon and loyalty to a platoon much greater than loyalty to a battalion.

    2. I disagree with Turley’s proposal too.

      I think that 9 or LESS is the correct number. It is important for the court to speak clearly with a consistent voice.

      The larger the court gets the mushier its guidance will be – regardless of which party controls it.

      Further the larger the court grows the less it will protect the rights of people and the more the powers of government.

      But the current democratic issue is NOT about the size of the court.

      It is a blatant political power grab.

      Conservatives have endured decades of “liberal” majorities – even when the country was much more conservative than the court.
      They have endured decades of unreliable minorities as purportedly conservative justices like Roberts and Kennedy could not be counted on.

      Democrats can choke it up and tolerate the court as it is – which is not all that right.

  13. For years, Democrats have called conservatives and Republicans fascists. They’ve couched their election rhetoric as a matter of liberty or a Constitutional crisis.

    Let’s look at the facts. Conservatives believe in limited government and strong individual rights. It’s literally impossible for a Fascist government to rise under those parameters.

    Democrats have repeatedly grabbed power:
    1. Trying to expand the seats on the SCOTUS in order to pack it and gain an unfair advantage
    2. Oppose all attempts to audit voter rolls in order to get rid of deceased, duplicate, felons, illegal aliens, or anyone else not lawfully authorized to vote.
    3. Oppose voter ID and any attempt to verify that the person voting is who they say they are
    4. Oppose the First Amendment – cancel culture, Brown Shirt behavior towards political dissenters
    5. Use of riots and looting across the country
    6. The lockdowns have gone far beyond rational, while granting plums to political donors. Hollywood “Craft Service” can cater outdoors while restaurant outdoor dining is shut down
    7. Trying to impose nationwide mail in ballots, as the most amenable to fraud, in defiance of the Constitution by which the states are to handle elections
    8. They brainwash gullible people into believing that everyone is born either oppressor or oppressed, based upon the color of their skin, which is one of the most blatantly racist ideologies of modern times. After all, you need a victim in order to claim you’re their savior.
    9. Democrats have control of Big Tech, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Instagram. They censor the speech of conservatives. They craft search algorithms that bury information deleterious to Democrats and promote stories, no matter how false, deleterious to Republicans. It’s Big Brother and propaganda that human rights abusing governments would approve of.
    10. Corporations and sports have fallen in line with Democrat policies trying not to get canceled. Shaving utensil commercials scold all men. Many commercials scold all whites.
    11. Democrats took over the education system, K-grad school. Children are taught from an early age to judge each other based on race. Critical Race Theory is required to graduate, even though it is racist and anti-semitic, and is a Civil Rights violation. Children are taught in school that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. That the nation was founded on slavery. They are not taught that the US, along with the rest of Western Civilization, was at the forefront of abolishing slavery. That it is still common in Africa. They are not taught that Western Civilization created the concept of personal freedom, or that Judeo Christian values led to the idea of human rights. Imagine what the norm would be if the Aztecs, or Tenochca, had kept expanding. What would be normal morals for a society founded upon human sacrifice? Or the Celts, who burned people alive in baskets? Instead, America is the evil oppressor, and Native Americans were portrayed as peace loving hippies who apparently had the strongest title law on Earth. Rather than teach Native American history, whereby tribes practiced slavery, captured women as sex slaves, tortured prisoners to death, scalped people alive, killed the children of enemies, battled over land, and the Black Hills changed hands with some frequency, Native people are portrayed as peace loving who respected each other’s territorial boundaries as a matter of honor. Native tribes were the Jedi, and the US was the Empire.

    Both Democrats and Republicans are afraid to criticize or disagree with the Democrat Party. Democrats remark about switching their vote to Republican on condition of anonymity, for fear of being canceled.

    What happens if you disagree with Democrat policy? You will be targeted for financial ruin. Every attempt will be made to impoverish you. If you have a career in Hollywood, it’s over. You’ll be blacklisted. Democrats target people in restaurants, screaming at them, throwing water in their faces, threatening them.

    Republicans are assaulted for wearing a political hat.

    Democrat media tell bald faced lies with seeming impunity, swallowed up by the gullible masses they point like a gun. A glaring example is the easily disprovable libel that Trump called racists “very fine people”, when what he actually said, available to all to see, was “and I’m not talking about the Neo Nazis and the white supremacists, who should be condemned totally.” Many good people oppose the destruction of statues.

    The Democrat Party has gone full ISIS in their treatment of sculptures of people they disapprove of. They rename schools. They claim Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves just wasn’t good enough. His opinions don’t hold muster to modern day Haight-Ashbury, so he’s canceled.

    Not too long ago, almost no one cared what color someone was. The Klan was a fringe lunatic group condemned by all.

    By by perservence and hard work, Democrats have managed to turn most blacks racist against whites and Latinos. They’ve convinced most Democrat whites to be racist against themselves, hanging their heads in shame for immutable characteristics like skin color. They call conservative blacks racist slurs with impunity. They blatantly discriminate against Asians in college admissions and hiring practices, as a race that’s “too successful.” They excoriate family cultures that produce successful people – nuclear family, studying hard, staying out of trouble, religion, conservative values, personal responsibility, and they lionize family cultures that produce failure – single motherhood, drug use, irresponsible behavior, absentee fathers, crime, and gangs. (Remember the absurd defense of MS-13?)

    1. Don’t you have anything else to do in your life other than regurgitate the slop you hear on Fox and spew the same anti-Democrat bile all the time? Karen: you are not a conservative. You are a gullible dumbass Trumpster. Nothing you said was truthful or correct, just more garbage you heard on Hannity, Tucker and the other Hate Network “hosts”.

      1. Bwahahahhahaha! Not only was everything Karen said truthful, it’s evidence-based. If it weren’t, you’d counter her comment with evidence proving it untrue, rather than resorting to your standard acid-spewing rant.

        1. Olly, you are right, of course. I wish there was a collection of Karen’s posts which could be put into book form. She has an amazing command of the facts and issues. The snide and wimpy response by Natacha simply amplifies Karen’s logic.

          1. The blog archives will have to suffice. Not only does she have a command of the facts and issues, her writing style has an uncommon clarity to it.

        2. I wrote a lengthy response, but Turley wouldn’t publish it. Karen is a delusional moron. Oh, and her rant left out the complaint that Michelle Obama’s nutritional program is starving children by encouraging low-fat milk and fruits and vegetables in school lunches.

      2. Hey commie mommie you anti Constitutionalists are not wanted and have no place in OUR Constitutional Repubic and you are NOT Democrats just garden variety socialists.

      3. “Don’t you have anything else to do in your life other than regurgitate the slop you hear on Fox and spew the same anti-Democrat bile all the time? ”

        Do you mean the “racist, racist, racist, nazi, nazi, nazi nonsense directed at everyone NOT on the left ?

        Recently a left wing nut Reporter was “swatted” by AOC’s twitteratti – for the crime of noting that her remarks on Mid east peace were not sufficiently pro-palestine. For that he was arrested.

        The left is not merely pissing all over conservatives – it is pissing over everyone.

        “Karen: you are not a conservative. You are a gullible dumbass Trumpster. Nothing you said was truthful or correct, just more garbage you heard on Hannity, Tucker and the other Hate Network “hosts”.”

        We got it – anyone who disagrees with you is a hater, a nazi, a white supremecist.

        No a big fox fan – but can you cite an actual example of “Hate” – and who is it that those on Fox hate ?

        1. John Say said:

          “Recently a left wing nut Reporter was “swatted” by AOC’s twitteratti – for the crime of noting that her remarks on Mid east peace were not sufficiently pro-palestine. For that he was arrested.”

          According to Max Blumenthal of Gray Zone, Wentz was questioned, at his home, and the police ‘left.’

          And you mention AOC, but Max B. mentions a similar incident involving a Ted Cruz tweet.

          https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/09/anti-war-activist-police-aoc-video/

          ‘According to Wentz, the police officers that visited him asked if he had any violent intent behind his tweet, then left. “If this was like a purely intimidation thing,” he reflected, “then I guess it did its job. It’s not comforting to be on the receiving end of that. But at the same time, they’re not going to shut the left up.”’

          ‘Wentz’s disturbing encounter with law enforcement appears to be part of an emerging trend. On the same date law enforcement visited him, a Twitter user posted photos of alleged federal agents on their front lawn and claimed, “FBI just came by my house for a tweet to Ted Cruz.”’

          1. You seem intent on nit picking something that was not about details.

            The FACT is the tweets regarding AOC that provoked the police inquiry were OBVIOUSLY not threats.

            Yes, I would like to know who Sic’ed the police on the blogger – in this instance that would be a CLEAR false report.

            AOC, Her Minions – which she DID encourage to drive disenters off her feed, or the capital police – I do not care.
            Those involved should be prosecuted for false reports.

            I am also disturbed that the California Police and aparently the Capital Police even bothered to investigate.
            The Tweet in question did not constitute a threat of any kind.
            SOME threat – not all, are not protected free speach, but political speech that is nothing more than criticism and disagreement is the MOST protected form of free speech.

            There should have been absolutely no investigation absent something more than this tweet.

            Your Cruz claim is completely devoid of details. It MIGHT be a similar example. It MIGHT even implicate Cruz.

            Or it might be some idiot posting pictures of FBI agents. There is a huge shortage of information.

            Absolutely real credible threats – whether to members of congress or to ordinary citizens should be investigated.

            Absolutely political speech absent a “True threat” is protected and not the domain of law enforcement.

            I will be happy to be as critical of the purportedly Cruz linked event – when you provide any information to be establish almost anything.

            We do not even know if the Cruz linked event actually happened. it is not like there have not been myriads of false claims against conservatives.

            For NOW what is REAL is that one left wing nut was improperly “swatted” for protected political speech criticizing another left wing nut.
            We also KNOW that AOC has directed her supporters to harass people on Twitter that criticize her.
            That is WRONG.

            I will be happy to make the same criticism of Cruz when you have sufficient facts to ACTUALLY make a similar claim.

            1. ” For that he was arrested.” -John Say

              John Say said that Wentz was arrested and it would seem that he wasn’t, in fact, arrested.

              John Say:

              What was your source?

              Do facts matter, John?

              1. Facts do matter – nits do not.

                There is no basis for the police to show up on this bloggers door step. PERIOD.
                When have when have we seen improperly predicated investigations before ? The collusion delusion.

                You want my source ? What does that matter ? Yours confirmed almost everything I said.

                The most important FACT is there was no legitimate basis to even investigate this blogger.
                NONE. An actual investigate would have required a true threat. There was no threat of any kind.
                We KNOW that.

                We do not know who reported this to the police. But whoever that was should be charged with false reports.
                You can claim it was some right wing nut trying to false flag the left if you wish – I doubt that, regardless, it is still a crime.

                As to your Cruz orange – we have NOTHING. It is possible this is a comparable story. Anything is possible.
                But we are 1000 miles short of enough information to evaluate that.

          2. Directly addressing the Cruz claim.

            Do you actually know that the FBI made inquiries with this person ?
            Do you know that it was over a tweet he posted ?
            Do you know that Cruz called in the FBI, or that Cruz exhorted his followers to do so ?
            Do you have the actual tweet that purportedly provoked this ?

            There is a real trend of lefties using the power of government and universities to target those who do not toe the line.

            There is also a real trend of false claims of being victimized by conservatives. The Jesse Smollet incident is the most well known.
            But even recently a huge mess errupted at a well known college when blatantly racist graffetti was found. After much angst and ranting and targeting of conservative groups investigators found that the graffetti was by a black student.
            In point of fact, I do not think there has been a single instance of racist graffetti on a college campus in 4 years that has not turned out to be a false flag – i.e. a Lefty trying to stir things up.

            From the start of Trump’s term NYC reported a significant increase in “hate crime” reports. But concurrently there was a significant increase in false reports that exceeded the increase in reports.

            Maybe you have something with Cruz. But if you wish to be beleived – you need more.

            There is no doubt that the swatting of the left wing Blogger was improper.
            There is no doubt that AOC encouraged her clan to harrass dissenters.
            All that is in doubt is precisely who on the left sicced the police on the CA lefty blogger.

          3. Why is greyzone a source ?

            The reporting on Wentz seems to be reasonably competent.
            But the afterthought regarding Cruz is conjecture on top of conjecture.
            We do not have any facts that are even slightly reliable.

      4. You have accused Karen of being a liar – “Nothing you said was truthful or correct”

        Please be specific – you have not only have accused Karen of error without being specific, but you have accused her of moral failure – lying.

        When you make an accusation of moral failure the burden of proof is on YOU.

        So what is it that Karen has lied about SPECIFICALLY – or are you just defaming her ?

        This is the problem with those of you on the left.

        You rant about hate – but it is clear that YOU are full of hate.

        I spend very little time watching any of the media – much less fox. What little I have seen I do not like Hannity – but i do not like most leftist talking heads either.

        But I have seen no evidence that Fox is full of liars and white supremecists and haters.

        What is YOUR evidence – YOU have made the accusation.

        Conversely we have seen myriads of moral accusations regarding Trump by the left media – FAIL.
        The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the media to get their facts straight.

        Regardless – why is it that any of us should trust NYT, WaPo or CNN and not trust Fox ?

        Can you name a major story that Fox has gotten wrong that NYT has gotten right ?

      5. One does not need Hannity or Tucker to accuse democrats or the left of failure.

        Both history and facts tell us that.

        You are a big proponent of left wing government. Can you cite a single example of successful left wing government ?

        A program that has not cost far more than it is worth ?
        A program that has worked ?

        We can presume the failure of government programs – because history tells us that they fail.

        We do not need Fox, or Hannity.

        Democrats today are far more co-opted by the left – but even past big democratic programs that were more moderate than those of the moment failed.

        Sweden abandoned its daliance with socialism lite decades ago – as did the rest of the “social democracies”.

        Socialism nearly drove england to third world status before Thatcher.

        Big government does not work. There is massive amounts of data confirming that.

        I will be happy to debate the merits of any program that you want.

        I am giving you the opportunity to cherry pick what you think is the best example of government success.
        Even the best programs work poorly – but most programs are not the best.

        Being opposed to repeating the mistakes of the past – is not hate. It is wisdom.

    2. Karen you are over the top.

      Democrats have TRIED to do as you claim.

      But contra the portrayal of the media they have not succeeded.

      Democrats are slowly LOOSING the minority vote.

      The big split in the country today is not black/white.

      It is between woke abysmally educated young adults and their more experienced elders.

      To some extent this division has been arround for a long time.
      But young adults have not been this badly educated, this badly indoctrinated, and this politically active and powerful in the past.

      One aspect of mailin voting – was that many more young adults voted. This is a group that traditionally does not turn out.

      Regardless, I do not disagree with you regarding what the left is trying.
      But they have not succeeded. Nor will they.

      At the very worst – they will fail because their ideas fail.

      The left is already in the midst of a social experiment – how long will the rest of us tolerate – not just the rioting, but the longer term increases in crime and violence that come with it.

      For the moment the left is driving things. But they are driving the car off the road and leaving a wake of destruction.

      I have read some who compared what is occuring to the cultural revoltuion – and that is a pretty good fit.

      But the US has no Mao.

      Look at this blog – even Turley is alarmed.

      Democrats have sewn the wind, we all are going to reap the whirlwind.

      But I am mostly reluctant to make this a democrat thing – though quite often it is convenient to frame things that way.

      Turely is neither conservative nor republican.
      Nor is Derschowitz,
      Nor is Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi, nor Barri Weis, nor the Weinsteins, nor Dave Rubin, nor ….

      The democratic party is close to tearing itself apart.

      To the extent that Biden might have won legitimately – he did so by holding together an increasingly divided and fragile coalition of actual liberals, moderate democrats, and the far left – with massive help from corporate america.

      Of those – who is going to support chaos, instability, rising crime ?

      The left wants to burn everything down and start over.

      Just in the area of policing the atmosphere is supercharged right now.

      Will Chauvin get convicted ?

      The facts do not matter, The law does not matter – if he is not – we can expect the country to burn down.
      If he is we can expect more police retirements, more blu flu, less agressive policing – and more crime.

      More recently we have Duante’s shooting. that officer has been charged.

      How do you think that goes over with the police ? The officer made a mistake. That Mistake cost Duante his life.
      Regardless, it was a mistake – not racism. SOMETIMES we criminalize mistakes, but only rarely.
      Conversely Duante made bad choices – not mistakes. He dealt drugs, he committed violent crimes – these lead to warrants.
      He resisted arrest – and that choice lead to his death just as much as the officers mistake.

      And yet we are rioting.

      Regardless, how many police do you think will continue to serve if they know that the bad choices of criminals in tense situations could result in them going to jail if them make a mistake ?

      We do not have systemically racist policing – but we have in the past, and the nation can survive that.
      It can survive the mistakes that police make. It can survive bad cops.

      But how well is the country going to do without police ?

      Do we even have a country when government fails at policing ?

      Just to be clear – I am NOT a great friend of “the men in blue”.
      They are necescary, but they are dangerous.
      I am all for reigning in their power.
      I have no problem eliminating qualified immunity.
      But I could not send either Chauvin or Potter to jail.

  14. “Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!”

    – Nikita Khrushchev
    _______________

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
    to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  15. What’s needed is a judge who can multi-task. It’s more cost effective for tax payers.

    A judge, cop & jury, wrapped in 1 package….. This court is adjourned.

  16. Wait.

    You’re surprised that the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) will now demolish the restricted-vote republic of the American Founders and impose the “dictatorship of the proletariat?”

  17. The Democrats have done it….they have crossed the line…and the push back is going to be far worse than in 2010. What we need is a new Tea Party style movement and a Republican in the House and Senate the can provide the same quality leadership that did Newt Gingrich come the 2022 Election. It is not a question of if the Republicans take back both Houses of Congress but by what size majority it will be.

    1. Ralph, agreed, except that once Democrats impose nation wide mail in ballots, and prevent auditing of voter rolls, there will be no stopping them.

      It’s devolving into Venezuela.

      1. What is your opinion of absentee ballots being individually bar-coded? The rationale for this to prevent the same voter from voting multiple times. My info says that all 50 states are using this security feature.

        If there is an integrity problem with absentee ballots, it’s that the person filling out the ballot could be someone other than the person who it was sent to. For that, I would like to see a thumbprint placed on the ballot by the voter. That way, thru thumbprint matching, someone voting multiple times could be 1) detected, and 2) prosecuted with proof.

        1. I am opposed to any form of voting that does not meet the requirements of Secret Ballots.

          Mailin voting can not ever meet those requirements.

          Absentee and in person balloting CAN – but only if done properly.

          I do not wish to address “bar coding” specifically – but there are technical measures that can be used to improve election security.

          First is just like Money – ballots should be difficult to forge.

          Next – we can do things like “bar coding” to detect duplicates. But we must be careful about that.

          Almost anything that we do that ties a ballot to a specific voter violates the requirement for secret ballots.

          That means that if you put bar codes or serial numbers on ballots you can NOT record which voters got which ballots.

          We can also deal with a posteriori determination of fraud in mailin or absentee ballots using one way hash functions.

          These would allow you to find the ballot that belong to an envelope that is subsequently determined to be fraudulent, but it would not allow you to find the envelope from the ballot.

          Regardless, my point is that there are technical means to improve voting – but all technical measures are not improvements and even all improvements are not wise.

          It is very important exactly how you impliment those technical measures.

          I would further note that election trust is multifacetted.

          Detecting fraud
          correcting fraud.
          preventing fraud
          prosecuting fraud

          are separate tasks.

          Nor does everything have to be done real time.

          We had the opportunity in 2020 to audit the election.
          There is very little election fraud that could not be detected by a reasonably well done audit.

          But that does NOT mean that fraud could be corrected or prosecuted.

          Raffensberger in GA agreed to a “signature audit”.
          Republicans wanted an audit of Fulton county.

          Raffensberger audited Cobb County – where the odds of fraud were much lower.

          Further the audit was a random audit – not a full audit.

          There is nothing wrong with a random audit – but you have to understand that you must scale the results to know what the actual findings are.

          GA rejected 0.25% of mailin ballots on the whole – that is a completely unrealistic number.
          The norm for absentee ballots is about 6%. the norm for first time maillin ballots is 20% – almost 100 times more.

          GBI randomly selected 5000 mailin ballot envelopes in Cobb county. Using a 20% match rule – 300 of 5000 or 6% of the envelopes failed to signature match.

          In otherwords 6% of GA ballots were accepted when GA law required that they must be rejected.

          Of those 300 – 30 were so bad that they were refered for criminal prosecution – election fraud. That is 0.6% of ballots were clearly fraudulent.

          Biden won GA by 0.42% of the vote – so there was likely 50% more easily identifiable fraud than necescary to flip the election.

          But just because we have indentified serious problems does not mean we can prove the election results were fraudulent.

          We can not tell how those invalid or fraudulent ballots voted.

          And all this and no one looked at Fulton county where the results were certainly worse.

          Across atleast 6 states – we still have almost 400K ballots that are unaccounted for.
          i.e. There are more ballots than voters. There are potentially non0fraudulent explanations for this – but fraud is also an explanation.
          Regardless we should not be able to run an election where that can happen, and we certainly should enquire further – as this IS an idicia of fraud.

        2. Voting should be hard – not easy.

          That is actually important.

          People are more careless about what has no cost.

          As they say “no one washes a rental car”.

          If I could I would schedule a hurrican accross the country on election day – so that only those willing to claw their way to the polls voted.

          The left has glommed on to the term “voter supression” as if it is the same as racism.

          Obama beat Romney by “supressing” republican votes in the rust belt.
          That is how negative adds work – they persuade people to NOT vote for the candidate of their party.

          France holds elections on a single day using paper ballots counted by hand with results in 24hrs.

          There is no need for early voting, no need for most absentee voting, no need for mailin voting. no need to make voting convenient.

          Making voting Hard does reduce voting – and that is what we want – if you are not willing to overcome some obstacles to vote – then you should not vote.

      2. Democrats do not have the authority to “impose” nationwide mail in ballots. This is strictly on a state by state basis, and in some states, like Colorado for instance, most voting is done by mail. There has never been a problem with fraud.

        What exactly do you think “auditing of voter rolls” will accomplish? There’s no evidence of any widespread voter fraud, dead people voting, people voting twice, people not registered to vote being allowed to vote anyway or any other issue. States regulate their voter rolls, not outsiders.

        You are, as usual, spewing crap you heard on Fox, News Max, OAN or Breitbart.

        1. Two way street separate from each other. The States have the unquestioned right to run their elections any way they want. that excludes the federal votes and their are only two federal candidates. President and Vice President.

          However when they add that level to their own they have created a Federal Document and must follow federal rules and regulations which does not include burning the when they feel like it.

          Take your pick one way or the other.

          Or be a good little Comrade and do what the Collectivists like Natcha order you do . Just another commie who is afraid to use a real name. Just another street corner Harris.

          1. There are slight differences between the constitutional requirements for President and those for the house.

            But both provide some role for congress in setting election rules.

            HOWEVER they do NOT provide a role for the STATES – the constitution is SPECIFIC – election matters are the domain of CONGRESS, and State LEGISLATURES.

            Federal elections are a federal matter where the constitution delegates some power to state legislatures.

            Court election challenges therefore must be in federal courts.

        2. “Democrats do not have the authority to “impose” nationwide mail in ballots.”

          That is false – please read the constitution – though there is some difference in the wording between Presidential elections and congressional elections, Congress does have some – possibly great authority over federal election.

          “This is strictly on a state by state basis,”
          False states have exclusive control of state elections – authority over federal elections resides with State legislatures and congress – NOT the states as a whole.

          “and in some states, like Colorado for instance, most voting is done by mail. There has never been a problem with fraud.”
          You do not know that – neither does Colorado.

          “What exactly do you think “auditing of voter rolls” will accomplish?”
          I have not asked for “auditing the voter rolls” – there is already federal law requiring that – yet you said that the federal government can not do that. Do you know anything about what you are talking about ?

          Regardless, Personally I think that voter registration should be completely eliminated – if you have a valid government issued photo ID with an address within the precinct – you may vote. Primary elections should be handled entirely by political parties,

          “There’s no evidence of any widespread voter fraud, dead people voting, people voting twice, people not registered to vote being allowed to vote anyway or any other issue. States regulate their voter rolls, not outsiders.”
          Of course there is – in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. In NH in 2016 6500 people voted with out of state ID – subsequently NH was able to confirm that 2000 of those were actually new NH residents. of the remainder – after 18 months there was no evidence that these voters ever were NH residence – they did not register a vehcle in NH, they did not get an NH drivers license, then did not buy a home or ANYTHING that generate an NH government record that they were a residence.

          The NH 2016 Senate election likely would have flipped, and possibly the NH presidential election.

          There are myriads of instances of proveable fraud throughout the country every single election.

          But there is a difference between proveable fraud – and prosecuteable fraud.

          If 35K dead people somehow voted in your state – how do you prosecute that ?
          Nutacha – you are oblivious of reality or the facts.

        3. Nutacha – Right wing tin foil hat conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has a better track record that the news anchors of MSNBC, NYT CNN, Wapo – and You want to go after Fox ?

          Really ?

          The Biden administration just pissed all over the Russian Bounties claim – AGAIN.

          Can you tell me anything that the press reported on in the past 4 years that was correct ?

          The CDC just announced that studies have found that if you touch a surface that is contaminated by Covid you have a 1/10000 chance of getting covid from that.

          In otherwords we have been sanitizing the crap out of everything for nothing.
          Atleast one source stated that there is not likely a single case of Covid that resulted from surface contact.

          Nor was this really a new discovery – we have actually know that respiratory viruses generally are not spread by surface contacts.

          This is just one of an infinite number of scientific errors by the “party of science”

          Do I need to go through the long litany of things that the left has been bat$hit crazy wrong about ?

          People are dying right now in large numbers in Michigan – the Data – which we have known since Feb 2020 is that this is because MI is a high latitude state with demographics that are bad for Covid.

          But if you want to blame it on politics – fine – I guess blue state governors are murderers.
          Overall States that took a much lighter touch had less problems with Covid.

          MAYBE that was because they are red states.
          MAYBE that was because lockdowns make Covid worse.
          MAYBE it was because they did a better job where things really mattered.
          Maybe it was demographics.
          Mayer it was geography.

          What it damn sure was not is lockdowns, and masks and other left wing nut policies.

          Are you ever tired of being WRONG ?

          Are you capable of learning from your mistakes ?

          Why do you keep defaming people who have done a better job of checking the facts ?

          I do not follow the media services that you defamed – but the very fact that you defamed them makes them more credible to me.

          You are so wrong so often about so many things – one can very nearly determine the facts are the opposite of what you claim.

            1. Nutacha’s posts are OBVIOUSLY bat $hit crazy.

              It is not childish to call a nut a nut.

              If anything I sometimes feel guilty criticizing her.

              We are not all blessed with intelligence, it is not her fault that she is not.

                1. “Your criticisms describe you better than they describe her.”

                  So say Anonymous ?
                  Really ?

                  Nutacha at least has the courage to post under an identity.

                  I have far more respect for her than you.

                  Regardless, my posts, your posts, her posts are all here for anyone to read.

                  I have no fear of the judgement of rational people and no interests in the judgement of those who are not.

        4. I have been publicly commenting on election integrity issues since 2000.

          I was highly critical of the Bush administrations push for electronic voting machines.

          I would personally prefer US voting that was similar to that of France.

          No mailin voting, no absentee voting, all voting in persson, no campaigning a few days before the election,
          all voting on one day. all voting on paper, all voting counted by hand, All counting in public, all results released at the same time within 24hrs of polls closing.

          BUT – we can have computers count paper ballots – If and Only if they are subject to random HAND audits after the election.

          What we have today is deeply flawed and has myriads of vectors for fraud.

          We need a constitutional amendment requiring secret ballots. 28 states have that, 5 swing state – all 5 of which violated their state constitutions in 2020.

          Mailin elections can not be secured. PERIOD. It is not possible. They are ALWAYS subject to coercion and inducement.,

          If you ever allow ballots outside the custody of election officials not only will you have fraud – ultimately you will have large scale fraud.

          You can not prevent it.

          PV released undercover video in Sept 2020 indicating that ballot harvestors in the Ilhan Omar campaign were getting $300 for each filled in ballot they collected.

          The Secret ballot laws in state constututions are specifically because of the incredibly large scale voting fraud that occured int eh 19th century,.

          We have not today secured in person elections sufficiently to have confidence in the outcome where the margin of victory is less than the margin of error – and that happens ALL THE TIME today.

          A 0,006 percent rate of error or fraud – that is an incredibly low rate is sufficient to flip the house, the senate and the presidency in 2020.

          Raffensburger ultimately did a random signature audit in Cobb country GA – probably the least likely democrat county in GA to have significant fraud. The rate of fraud was 0.6% – that is 100 times the rate needed to flip the entire election – house, senate, president.

          The error rate BTW was 10 times as high – 6% – the NORMAL error rate for mailin ballots.
          Amazing GA does a random audit of mailin ballots and finds an error rate EXACTLY the same as the normal error rate for absentee ballots and almost 20 times higher then needed to flip the election ? An actual fraud rate twice as high as needed.

          Now this was a single random audit of only 5000 mailin ballots – but it was done in a place cherry picked to have low rates of fraud and error – and the error rate was 6% and the fraud rate was 0.6%.

          Please quit spreading this garbage that fraud is rare. It is not.
          Probably 95 % of the time – it is not high enough to effect the outcome. But that is still a high enough rate to flip 20 house seats, and 5 senate seats EVERY ELECTION.

          Franken Coleman was decided by 3500 votes, Hassan Ayotte by 2500. There is probably not a single state in the country that does not have 3500 fraudulent votes in every election. We have multiple house seats decided by less than 100 votes – one by 6 votes.

          You are completely ill informed with respect to election integrity and election fraud.

          You talk about blindly spewing talking points – look in the mirror.

          You clearly DO NOT KNOW any of the things you claim to know. You spray nonsense you heard on the media – without ever checking anything.

      3. Why do you presume that all of this will be tolerated ?

        Why do you presume that only democrats are capable of cheating ?

        Why do you presume that republicans have few choices ?

        If the next election is going to be lawless – so be it. Bring it on !

        It is far easier to disrupt a mailin election. It is far easier to create chaos than it is to create order.

        If democrats want chaos – give them chaos.

        Democrats in 2020 have provided republicans a blueprint for how to win lawless elections.

        What if the objective is NOT to win ? But merely to show how much chaos lawless elections can have ?

        In my state – ballots were collected at unattended drop boxes. Beyond MAYBE confirming that the ballot was from a person on the voter registration rolls nothing else was done to verify the legitimacy of the ballot.

        As the 2020 election was conducted in my state it is trivial to inject however many fraudulent ballots you want too.

        One of the problems when one side abandon’s the rule of law is that the other side is justified in doing the same.

        1. Good posts and it point up how far from valid letting the socialists interfere has gone. Too Far.

          1. For longer than I have been alive (I am 62) democrats have been the FIRST to break norms, rules, laws, ….

            But they are rarely the last.

            California legalized Ballot harvesting – which nearly every state considers a crime.
            Republicans go ambushed ONCE

            Republicans may be more moral than democrats – in that they will NOT be the ones to violate norms, laws and rules FIRST,
            But they are not stupid – every single tactic that democrats have ever pulled to gain an advantage – has been learned and often bested by republicans.

            It is pretty trivial to ensure that there will only be one more election with mailin voting.

            All that is necescary is to make certain that there is very large scale fraud, and that you will not be caught.

            With the rules used for 2020 – that is trivial. It would be a miracle if there was not signifcant election fraud in 2020.

            But in the unlikely event there was not – there will be.

            The US has a long history of election fraud. Without secret ballots – we get widespread fraud.

            The current system is tailor made for massive fraud that can not be prosecuted.
            It is not even that easy to catch it.

            With a small amount of resources I could personally tip the entire 2022 election – in a big way. without getting caught.
            And if the rules were as in 2020 – it would only be detected if results were far enough outside the expected windows to trigger a real audit.

            This is also a problem with 2020 – the polls were wrong – by about 4 pts. that means we do not have sufficient data to know if the results we saw nationwide were out of line.

            I have heard people argue that Trump won california – I think that is near impossible. But not totally impossible.

            The odds that Trump won in 2020 – are probably less than 50:50 – but not by much.

            It is entirely possible that Trump won ALL 6 swing states. Probable ? no.
            but it would only take 45,000 votes to win the electoral college.

            BTW to the NSA and feds listening – I COULD flip the election.
            I am not going to. A thought experiement is not a crime – except for those on the left.

      4. Democrats cannot “impose” anything in re ballots. How voting is conducted is a state by state issue, as is control of voter rolls which are confidential by law. There has never been any issue with widespread voter fraud. Some states have only voted by mail for years–Colorado, for example, and there has been no problem with fraud, dead people voting, duplicate voting or any other issue.

        The fact that you keep repeating the garbage you heard on Fox about how mail in voting cost your fat hero the election, that mail voting is fraught with fraud, and that voter rolls should be opened up for review by outsiders proves that you are a gullible dupe.

        1. “Democrats cannot “impose” anything in re ballots. How voting is conducted is a state by state issue,”
          Wrong, the Helping america Vote act was passed in 2001 by congress – there is no doubt that congress has a role in elections.

          There is a question as to whether HR1 is constitutional. But none that congress has SOME ability to regulate federal elections.

          “as is control of voter rolls which are confidential by law.”
          Also wrong – voter registration rols can be purchased for nominal fees from every state – they are public record.
          Both political parties have them.

          “There has never been any issue with widespread voter fraud.”
          Wrong – the US has a very long history of election fraud.

          “Some states have only voted by mail for years–Colorado, for example, and there has been no problem with fraud,”
          Wrong – you do not know that.

          “dead people voting, duplicate voting or any other issue.”

          It is well known that both happen all the time.
          They are not correctable or prosecutable after the fact.

          How are you going to prosecute a dead person for voting ? or a duplicate vote ?

Leave a Reply