Unpacked and Undivided: Is The Court Sending A Message With A Litany Of 9-0 Decisions?

Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland v. Dai and United States v. Cooley.  This follow two unanimous decisions last week.  The weekly display of unanimity is notable given the calls by Democratic leaders to pack the Court. Yesterday, I wrote about how the heavy-handed campaigns might backfire with the justices. As we await important and likely divided decisions on issues like abortion, Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the Court is not so rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest.

In the Garland case, the court ruled (again) unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch on the rule in immigration disputes regarding the credibility of noncitizens’ testimony.   In Cooley, the Court unanimously ruled in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer that a tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation.

Last week, there were two unanimous opinions making this six 9-0 rulings in two weeks. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion in  United States v. Palomar-Santiago, an immigration decision that ruled for the government and against an immigrant. It also ruled unanimously in Territory of Guam v. United States, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The Court ruled in favor of Guam on the collection of funding from the U.S. government to remediate environmental pollution on the island.

This is an extraordinary litany of unanimous decisions and could in part reflect an implied message from the justices that this is a court that is not nearly as rigid and divided as suggested by Democratic members and activists.

Recently, 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.)

Other justices have denounced such court packing schemes. Shortly before she died, Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly warned against the move: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

Nevertheless, Democratic members have continued to call the Court, to use Joe Biden’s words, “out of whack” due to the conservative majority.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and more recently Sen. Richard Blumenthal have warned conservative justices of dire consequences for the Court if they did not rule with their liberal colleagues on high-profile cases expected in the next two weeks.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. not only endorsed the court-packing scheme but went even further to question why we should listen to just nine people on such important questions. She appeared to question the very basis for Marbury v. Madison — the case laying the foundation for the Supreme Court in our constitutional system. AOC challenged the role of the Court in overturning laws. She questioned “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” She then added “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

The scheduling of these unanimous opinions may be the Court clearing its throat on these campaigns and threats. The litany of unanimous rulings amplifies the fact that most cases are resolved with compromise and different alignments of the justices. There are always “big ticket” cases that produce more ideological divisions but they are the exception rather than the rule for the Court.  These are honest ideological differences and we want the justices to be consistent on their underlying principles. However, most of the work of the Court remains less ideologically driven on issues ranging from statutory interpretation to evidentiary rules.

There remains a bright-line preventing justices from speaking on political issues or controversies, though this rule is sometimes honored in the breach.  However, there are times when the justices speak loudest through their opinions, particularly when they speak with one voice. In these cases, the justices are discussing different subjects but they clearly want the public to see them speaking as one. One court. Unpacked and undivided.

259 thoughts on “Unpacked and Undivided: Is The Court Sending A Message With A Litany Of 9-0 Decisions?”

  1. Lol wow … is this Svelaz cat in the comments for real? If he is a regular around here I may have to visit more often simply for the lulzs when reading this Svelaz guy’s bravo sierra.

    1. This blog is rife with lots of folks with different views. Mine are just another $ .2 put in like everyone else.

      The distinction is some don’t comport to reality because they don’t like being either criticized or refuted. Some people just can’t handle being shown the silliness of their arguments.

  2. AOC likes to conveniently ignore that ‘hundreds of thousands’ support such things as immigration laws. For the laws she disagrees with, she has no problem ignoring everything behind those, regardless of how many people support them. And not all laws have such support. There are plenty that have nearly no support but lawmakers continue to pass such laws or allow the existing ones to continue.

  3. “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

    That “us” is AOC and her fellow power lusters. She, the Squad, and their enablers detest the American system of checks and balances. The notion of a constitutionally limited republic, with a supreme court as the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional — all of that structure thwarts their desire for total control.

    So what type of political system do they want? Absolute majority rule — with them as the “voice” of the people. If those totalitarians are successful, prepare yourselves for the Squad’s guillotines.

    1. Sam,

      “ That “us” is AOC and her fellow power lusters. She, the Squad, and their enablers detest the American system of checks and balances.”

      No. The “us” she’s referring to is ALL of us. Not just the left. She wants to improve our system of checks abs balances by balancing the court instead of making it a majority conservative or liberal group. The best way to balance it is to increase the number of justices in order to achieve a better balance of ideological differences in the court.

      Republicans don’t want that because they want THEIR ideological views to be the standard.

      1. Svelaz, you have subverted the reason for the existence of the Supreme Court. You seem to know very little about the Constitutional Republic where you reside.

        SM

        1. S. Meyer,

          “Svelaz, you have subverted the reason for the existence of the Supreme Court. You seem to know very little about the Constitutional Republic where you reside.”

          LOL! It’s cute when you try to seem like a smart person by trying to use big words you think you understand.

          Balancing the ideological makeup of the court isn’t subverting it. It’s balancing its ideological makeup. That doesn’t change its job or alter its procedures. A constitutional republic which consists of three equal branches of government is not dependent on the number of Supreme Court justices on the bench. There is nothing in the constitution that states how many justices are to be on the court. If the majority of the legislature wants to increase the number of justices they are perfectly able to do so. Even Turley supports an increase in the number of justices to balance its ideological makeup.

          1. “Balancing the ideological makeup of the court isn’t subverting it”

            Too dumb. When you balance the Supreme Court by packing it, that subverts the Supreme Court. Look at your history and look at what was debated when the Constitution was written.

            Take note that there are other parties. Shouldn’t they also have members on the Supreme Court? I guess they don’t count.

            I know that looking at the discussion when the Constitution was written will be your first experience.

            SM

            1. S. Meyer,

              “ Too dumb. When you balance the Supreme Court by packing it, that subverts the Supreme Court. Look at your history and look at what was debated when the Constitution was written.”

              You really don’t understand the words that you’re trying to use to make you look smart.

              Balancing the ideological makeup of the court by increasing the number of justices is not subverting it. To subvert is to undermine its authority. Increasing the number of justices doesn’t undermine its authority at all. It balances the ideological makeup to a more fair number of conservatives and liberals. That ENHANCES their authority because wouldn’t be able to accuse the court of being partisan.

              Yes it has been debated in the past and NOTHING in the constitution limits the number of justices in the court of even who can be there. A janitor could be appointed a Supreme Court justice if he was confirmed by the senate.

              “ Take note that there are other parties. Shouldn’t they also have members on the Supreme Court? I guess they don’t count.”

              Hey, earth to Allan? Pay attention dumba$$. BALANCING THE COURT WITH AN EQUAL NUMBER OF CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL JUSTICES, MEANING FROM BOTH PARTIES BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF JUSTICES CREATES AN IDEOLOGICALLY BALANCED COURT.

              Republicans DON’T want that. They want a court that will cater to their own views. They don’t want fair. They want THEIR views to be the standard.

              1. “BALANCING THE COURT WITH AN EQUAL NUMBER OF CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL JUSTICES, MEANING FROM BOTH PARTIES BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF JUSTICES CREATES AN IDEOLOGICALLY BALANCED COURT.”

                Absolute stupidity.

                Karen recently questioned you about balancing and now you say the above garbage. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine if laws are constitutional. It’s not supposed to be representative of different ideologies even though it has become more and more that way.

                Answer me this. The left is not unified so how do you balance the judges to be fair to all parts of the left? You are incredibly stupid.

                SM

                1. S. Meyer,

                  “Karen recently questioned you about balancing and now you say the above garbage. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine if laws are constitutional. It’s not supposed to be representative of different ideologies even though it has become more and more that way.”

                  Allan, pay attention. You’re not following the point. I’m telling you that what democrats see as an unbalanced Supreme court with a conservative majority who is willing to ignore stare decisis. That is honoring long established precedent. By increasing the number of justices in order to BALANCE the court with an equal number of ideologically inclined justices. MEANING an equal number of conservative and Liberal justices. NOTHING in the constitution states that supreme court justices MUST be representative of different ideologies. HOWEVER, in the interest of creating a BALANCED court so that EVERYONE cannot blame it’s decisions as partisan, conservative, or liberal IS a perfectly rational course of action that professor Turley himself fully supports.

                  “The left is not unified so how do you balance the judges to be fair to all parts of the left? You are incredibly stupid.”

                  The right isn’t not unified either, which it is why democrats wanted to create a bipartisan commission to explore their options. Including everyone would ensure there is robust debate on how to keep a good balance. This is not a claim that it will ever be perfect. BUT it is far better than the current setup. I’m hoping you ARE smart enough to at least understand the concept I just explained to you, but if you still are not getting it. Then maybe it is just too much for you to handle and resign yourself to hurling insults because you feel too inadequate to be an adult and actually think about what you read.

                  1. Svelaz, your desire to remain ignorant is commendable. So many have attempted to provide you with a basic understanding of our government. Yet, despite being provided all that help, it is astounding to more knowledgeable folk that you remain ignorant regarding how the founders created our government and its checks and balances system.

                    The judicial branch was not supposed to be ideological. Instead, their job is to interpret the Constitution. Fools want to convert the Supreme Court into what you call a “balanced court.” That, however, is a crazy notion that ignorant people assume is fair.

                    Firstly, fairness is not what the Supreme Court is all about. It is about interpreting the Constitution and leaving it to the legislative branch to pass laws fair to everyone.

                    Secondly, what good is your “balanced” Supreme Court? All you are creating is a second legislature that is inside the political sphere.

                    Finally, one doesn’t want so-called fairness in the Supreme Court. One wants the Supreme Court to uphold the laws of the land. Many of which protect the minority from the majority.

                    What you are suggesting and cannot understand is that you want a pure democracy. Our founders hated government by pure democracy more than they hated government by a King. They learned that democracy means that 51% of the population can enslave the other 49%. That fits your profile. As a Democrat, you were fine enslaving blacks and later fine with oppressing them.

                    You call others dumb, not because you know what you are talking about. Instead, you call others dumb because you are an uneducated insignificant fool.

                    1. Most people who find themselves getting banned from places of business usually find it happens in a bar. Allan no doubt gets banned from coffee shops and grocery stores.

                      eb

                    2. Bug, why would you think that? Are you just coming out from your ECT fog? Why would any grocery or coffee shop want to ban me? I am not the crazy lunatic you appear to be.

                      SM

                    3. S. Meyer,

                      “ So many have attempted to provide you with a basic understanding of our government. ”

                      There you go again, NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Nobody has provided anything to me about any understanding of our government. Here you’re just pulling claims out of your a$$.

                      We are not talking about how our founders created our government. YOU are the only one talking about it which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are talking about the Supreme Court and why it is perfectly constitutional to increase the number of justices in the court. The constitution says NOTHING about ideological, or even who qualifies as a Supreme Court judge. You can literally appoint anyone to be on the Supreme Court if the senate confirms that person.

                      I’m not even talking about “a pure democracy” or that BS that our founders didn’t want that. That’s your own meandering on an entirely different issue. You’re really, really bad at trying to argue within the scope of a discussion. When you’re losing an argument or not paying attention you turn into a dumba$$ 5 year old. It’s hilarious.

                      “ You call others dumb, not because you know what you are talking about. Instead, you call others dumb because you are an uneducated insignificant fool.”

                      No Allan. I just call YOU a dumba$$ because you say the dumbest things. Here’s one example, I’m directly quoting you.

                      “ As a Democrat, you were fine enslaving blacks and later fine with oppressing them.”

                      I’m a registered Republican you dumba$$. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and because of sheer frustration you suddenly “know” things about others that are STILL wrong. That’s what being uneducated is. Thanks for confirming it, now I actually KNOW what you are instead of assuming what you are.

                    4. Svelaz, you don’t get it. You think it is about the number of justices. That is what I would expect from a 10-year-old, but that is not the case. I understand Turley’s desire to increase the size of the Supreme Court even though I disagree, but neither Turley nor I wish to push it further into the ideological realm. The Supreme Court has already gone too far and has become too involved in politics. If you read anything by RBG or read anything on the subject, you wouldn’t be talking the way you do.

                      To add to the misery of listening to an ignorant intellect, I have to listen to that simpleton talk about balance without him having an understanding of what balance means. Maybe your understanding of balance would be correct if you were a seal in a circus, balancing a ball on your nose. Then we would have balance, where you, the seal, balance a ball on your nose.

                      You talk about what the Constitution says regarding the Supreme Court. However, you do not mention a bit about the political philosophy behind the founder’s motives and what they didn’t want to happen. First, they wanted checks and balances because they knew politicians could and would behave poorly. Second, they wanted a third branch independent of the two that restrained the other two.

                      Without knowing it, you are talking about rule through a pure democracy. That is where the majority wins, and the minority has no rights. So you are talking about 51% enslaving 49%.

                      You are dumber than dumb because you can only hear what is wrong from your lips, hearing nothing correct from those who know a heck of a lot more than you.

                      “I’m a registered Republican you dumba$$. ”

                      You are a semi-literate idiot. What does your party have to do with your intelligence or understanding of what our founding fathers were worried about and debated? Only a dummy makes statements like you.

                      I never liked any political party because politicians by nature are liars except for the few, and the few have been both Democrats and Republicans. Some were neither.

                    5. Allan, your desire to insult those you dislike is not commendable.

                    6. Anonymous the Stupid, I generally reserve insults for those that are nasty. Of course, I frequently reserve some insults for one person in particular. He is terminally Stupid and is a non-person.

              2. HELLO, Dems don’t care about “fair”. If they did, the would’ve supported more CONSERVATIVE Justices during most of the 20th century. But the truth is Democrats didn’t want to “balance” the Supreme Court when it had a majority LEFTIST ideological view during the majority 20th century and now, into the 21st century, until Trump’s presidency. LOTS of VERY socialist/leftist unconstitutional laws were allowed to stand because the majority of Justices at the time leaned left, socialist. AFTER THOSE RULINGS, THE NEXT REPUBICAN PRESIDENTS (whether Reagan, Bush or Trump) DID NOT PACK THE COURT by adding more conservative Justices

          2. Svelaz – how do you “balance” a bench of 9 judges? It’s an odd number. See my question above. Please define what “balance” means to you.

            Don’t misrepresent what Turley has supported. He has explicitly opposed any single party expanding the Court all at once just to pack it. He has repeatedly said the Court should be expanded very gradually, to avoid an abuse of power or an ideological power grab.

            Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed court packing.

            1. Karen S,

              “Svelaz – how do you “balance” a bench of 9 judges? It’s an odd number. See my question above. Please define what “balance” means to you.

              The constitution does NOT set the number of justices, there have been more than 9 justices before. There could be an even number or an odd number. An odd number would ensure there is a clear majority whether it is conservative justices ruling with liberal justices or vice versa.

              “Don’t misrepresent what Turley has supported. He has explicitly opposed any single party expanding the Court all at once just to pack it. He has repeatedly said the Court should be expanded very gradually, to avoid an abuse of power or an ideological power grab. ”

              Yes he did, That is absolutely right. I DID say that Turley supported increasing the number of justices. NOT all at once.

              “Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed court packing.”

              Yes she did. But, shes also dead. This current court has shown that precedent or the opinions of past courts are subject to being changed. Honoring precedent according to the current conservative majority is nor absolute or sacrosanct. So what the late justice Ginsburg said is merely an opinion and the decision to whether to expand or even shrink the court is entirely up to Congress. They set the rules.

          3. You can’t balance an odd number of judges. And you can’t have even numbers because of the risk of a tie.

            Stop calling this “balance”. That’s inaccurate and misleading. What you really want is for the majority to shift Left, and you support creating empty seats to do it.

            If Democrats do this, then Republicans will do so, too. How would you feel if a left-leaning Court swung Right because a Republican President and Congress expanded the Court by 51 seats, and stuffed it with conservatives?

            If you would object to the other side emulating your own behavior, you know you’re doing wrong.

            1. Karen S,

              “ You can’t balance an odd number of judges. And you can’t have even numbers because of the risk of a tie.”

              Yes you can. You’re thinking too literally about ‘balance’. You can have an odd number of justices and still have balance. If we are to try to balance the court’s ideological makeup you can have an even number of conservative and liberal justices with one who could be considered a moderate or a center leaning justice. Keep in mind this is just theoretical, but it is also possible.

              One judge who could side with either ideological view or you could have some conservative justices side with liberal justices on a case or vice versa. It has happened and it is not a radical concept.

              “ What you really want is for the majority to shift Left, and you support creating empty seats to do it.”

              No. That’s not what I want. What I do want is a more fair and ideologically balanced Supreme Court. Because it gives it far more credibility than a court comprised of a majority of either conservatives or liberals. Republicans are the ones who DON’T want that because they want their conservative views to be the standard.

              “ If Democrats do this, then Republicans will do so, too.”

              Yes that can happen too and that’s why it is very important to have a bipartisan commission to decide what’s best for both parties. Not just one. Again republicans DON’T want that.

              “ If you would object to the other side emulating your own behavior, you know you’re doing wrong.”

              Yes I would object to the other side doing it too, and that’s what they sue when republicans refused to seat president Obama’s Supreme Court pick when he appointed Garland. Republicans WANTED a majority conservative court and they succeeded in making it happen. Balancing the court by increasing the number of justices removes that majority so there is no majority of either ideological views in the court.

              1. Svalez:

                “You can have an odd number of justices and still have balance. If we are to try to balance the court’s ideological makeup you can have an even number of conservative and liberal justices with one who could be considered a moderate or a center leaning justice. Keep in mind this is just theoretical, but it is also possible.”

                If I understand you correctly, you are proposing an equal distribution of left and right, with one centrist who can go either way.

                Are you proposing that the Democrat Party plans to use their appointments to put right wing justices in empty seats, for example? Do you think that the Democrats are going to expand the Court, only appoint an equal number of Leftist justices, and then appoint one more who is completely non biased, and could swing either way? They’d go to all that trouble and for what?

                Would the centrist be one who interprets the Constitution as written, and leaves the legislating up to the Legislative Branch? Because we call that a “conservative” or a “Constitutional originalist.” By all means, appoint all justices who just interpret the Constitution as is, without making tremendous leaps into what rights can possibly be inferred. There are some who proclaim that biological males have the Constitutional right to compete against biological females, regardless of the physiological advantage. There are some who say that a toddler has the Constitutional Right to demand to be castrated and get surgery to try to look more female. Some say that a transgender or gay person has the Constitutional Right to force a portrait artist, photographer, florist, or baker to create original artwork that is against their beliefs. (Usually these same people don’t think anyone should be forced against their will to create such art for a Trump supporter.) An originalist would find no such right in the text.

                You are fantasizing if you think the Democrats would ever appoint ideologically right leaning justices in order to “balance” any Court. Nor would they want a tie breaker who is a Constitutional originalist.

                In fact, “centrist” usually doesn’t mean right in the middle of Left and Right to a Democrat. It means Left leaning, but less so than Antifa or a Democratic Socialist.

                Once again, court packing requires expanding the Supreme Court in order to stuff it with your picks. There have to be more people on a Bench than originally for it be “packing” rather than “filling a vacancy.”

                While I agree with you that Congress should have reviewed Garland, and then approved or rejected him, it was their right not to. Kind of like when Democrats walk out, or refuse to vote. Unless there was a law against Congress people walking out in order to lose quorum, then Texas doesn’t really have much it can do about it, other than vote wiser next time. I also think Dems were wrong to stage a walk out, but I have not heard this was illegal.

                Democrats have delayed votes, or refused to vote, or refuse to hear a bill, many, many times over its history. Any claim that it’s packing a court when Republicans do it is farcical. Again, the number of justices on the Court was not expanded. There were 9 seats, and there still are 9 seats.

                Redefining court packing to apply to filling vacancies is not truthful.

                “Balancing the court by increasing the number of justices removes that majority so there is no majority of either ideological views in the court.” That is not what the Democrat Party is on record trying to do. They seek a Democrat majority on SCOTUS, and they’re willing to expand the Court in order to do it.

                I don’t want a Republican view to be the standard on SCOTUS. I want SCOTUS to apply the Constitution as it was written, regardless of their personal feelings. It is not their job to legislate, or to create new rights out of nothing. That is the duty and honor of the Legislative Branch. If a justice could be counted upon to just follow the law as written, then it wouldn’t matter if they were a card-carrying Communist. It wouldn’t matter if they donated their estate to Antifa. Their jurisprudence is all that would matter. There have been conservative justices who ruled against Republican presidents, if they felt that’s where the law led. That’s what’s supposed to happen.

                We all have read Turley make a legal analysis in which he wished the outcome was different, but the law made it otherwise.

          4. You wouldn’t be saying any of this crap if a Republican majority in congress were pushing to do this, and you know it. If “balancing the ideological makeup” is so great and fair, why don’t we get a second, Republican, president? Why don’t we “ideologically balance” congress? Especially at a time when Sleepy Joe and others in his administration are calling to expand monitoring and targeting of his political opposition as never before because of phony “domestic terrorism” concerns, while ignoring and downplaying violence by any individual or group that can’t be portrayed as right wing or white.

          5. The Supreme Court is there to ensure the laws are being limited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not there to be a political and partisan body. That’s what you are apparently unable to grasp. Filling the court with partisan activists clearly does subvert the role of the Supreme Court. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of its role, or you are merely a mendacious propaganda troll.

      2. Svelaz, you have repeated a common Democrat talking point of “balancing the court.” What does “balance” mean? All Democrat? 5 justices appointed by Democrat Presidents and 4 appointed by Republicans? With an odd number of justices, it is impossible to have an equal balance of justices appointed by either side.

        If Democrats are in power in Congress and the White House for the next 20 years, would you want them to alternate choosing left leaning and right leaning justices, to maintain some semblance of “balance”?

        Or does balance mean the SCOTUS has to be composed of at least a majority of left-leaning justices?

        No one has ever explained what “balance” means, so hopefully you will be the first.

        Each President appoints a justice when a seat comes open. That appointment is reviewed by Congress. SCOTUS shouldn’t be political. Someone could vote Democrat or Republican all day long, but they could each apply the Constitution as written to the cases before them.

        “Republicans don’t want that because they want THEIR ideological views to be the standard.” Let me rephrase this. Republicans object to Democrats expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to pack them with their picks all at once, in a clear abuse of power. Of course both Republicans and Democrats want the Court to be either conservative or Democrat, respectively. I can’t really say “Liberal”, as the term no longer means limited government with strong individual liberty. The difference is what each is willing to do to get it. You should note that when Republicans were in power, they did not expand the Court and pack it. Should Democrats do this, then it will trigger equal actions on the part of the right, and the entire country will suffer for it.

        Is this a question that each side wants to appoint justices? The whole Handmaid’s Tale stunts are for the express purpose of objecting to and trying to interfere with an appointment of justices they don’t want.

        1. Karen S.

          “Svelaz, you have repeated a common Democrat talking point of “balancing the court.” What does “balance” mean? All Democrat? 5 justices appointed by Democrat Presidents and 4 appointed by Republicans? With an odd number of justices, it is impossible to have an equal balance of justices appointed by either side.”

          As I have pointed out to you and Allan, the number of justices on the court is NOT limited to just 9, The constitution does NOT require nor limit the number of justices congress can appoint to the supreme court. There really is no limit. This gives democrats AND republicans IF they wish to participate in reshaping the Supreme court so that these judicial appointments no longer become partisan fights over the which ideology should dominate the court. They can even END lifetime appointments and create term limits instead. Ensuring there are fresh perspectives from BOTH conservative and liberal justices.

          ” Let me rephrase this. Republicans object to Democrats expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to pack them with their picks all at once, in a clear abuse of power. Of course both Republicans and Democrats want the Court to be either conservative or Democrat, respectively. I can’t really say “Liberal”, as the term no longer means limited government with strong individual liberty. ”

          No, that is NOT what they want. That is what republicans are telling their own constituents what democrats want in order to oppose what they see as an attempt to dilute the conservative majority in the court. What democrats DO want is a more fair balanced court which nullifies any perception of the court being partisan as it is increasingly becoming. “Liberal” doesn’t take away your individual liberty at all. Have you noticed that it is Republicans who are passing laws TARGETING the individual liberties of the transgendered, homosexuals, minorities, etc. because they don’t align with THEIR values? Liberals are making sure the GET the SAME liberties everyone else enjoys. Gay marriage was their individual liberty to marry who they love. Conservatives wanted to DENY them that liberty. Conservatives want to DENY a transgendered individual their individual liberty to determine who they are and enjoy the SAME liberties YOU do. Without being judged by who you are. Can you honestly say that conservatives are making sure those people’s individual liberties are being protected?

          ” You should note that when Republicans were in power, they did not expand the Court and pack it.”

          They actually did. Not the supreme court. But they did pack the lower courts with conservative judges. That is what Mitch McConnell was doing during Trump’s term. They were rushing to confirm as many conservative judges as they could, PACKING, the lower courts. They DID expand the number of conservative justices in the lower courts. Bet you didn’t know that.

          1. Svelaz, you have not answered my question about what “balance” means to you. Does it mean a Democrat majority? Does it mean appointing an equal number of conservative and Liberal justices? Or does it mean the Democrats are going to expand the Court in order to pick a whole bunch of leftist justices, so that the entire court shifts left?

            Does “balanced” mean an equal divide, which would require an equal number of justices, and therefore have the risk of a hung verdict?

            Because, so far, what Democrats have been pushing isn’t “balance”; it’s expanding the number of seats on SCOTUS so as to shift the entire Court Left, when seats are not vacant to fill as they come up.

            Court packing means creating more seats in order to appoint more judges. It does not mean simply filling vacancies as they arise.

            Trump did not pack the court. He appointed judges to vacancies.

            Rushing to confirm vacancies isn’t packing, it’s filling vacancies. Packing requires expanding a court in order to fill it.

            This has been defined many times. Simply redefining it to mean filling a vacancy is absurd. That would mean that Democrats court pack every time they are in the White House and able to make judicial appointments. That means it’s always packing.

            So, once again, does “balance” mean swinging the entire Court Left, or does it mean an even split conservative and left-leaning, with the risk of a tie?

            1. There are two options, an even or an odd number of justices on the Supreme Court. Whether the number is 9, 13, or 15, it’s still an odd number. How do you “balance” an odd number? It appears that “balance” means you don’t like the majority of the court and wish to create vacancies in order to swing that majority, in which case it’s “unbalanced” left rather than conservative.

              If you choose an even number of justices, you run the risk of a tie, hence why there is an odd number.

              Once again, how do you “balance” an odd Court?

              1. Karen S.

                “ Once again, how do you “balance” an odd Court?”

                You can balance an odd court by having an even number of conservative and liberal leaning justices plus ONE center leaning justice. That ONE justice can determine the majority in a decision either way. This is purely theoretical of course but it shows you how to balance an odd number of justices.
                Does that make sense?

                1. My God, Svelaz, the power you would give to one person. If everyone on the court were ideologues, trusted to vote on some sort of party line, then they would be nullities.

                  If everyone on the Court applied the law as it was written, then their personal politics and opinions would be immaterial.

                  Thank you for explaining what you view as a “balanced” court, but it would give tremendous power to one person, and it’s also not what the Democrat Party is proposing. They are clear and on the record that they want a Left majority SCOTUS.

                  Even your so called “center leaning justice”…center leaning from what? A center-leaning Democrat is still on the Left. It’s not someone who truly has no left or right tendency at all. A moderate Democrat deciding vote shifts the Court Left.

                  I would rather everyone just apply the law as written, not create new laws or rights as a loophole around the legislative branch, no matter which party appoints them. None of those justices should be voting on any case depending on whether it advances their personal political goals, or serves their political party.

                  I wish justices were really unbiased. Perhaps these consecutive unanimous or near unanimous votes is an indicator that they wish this, themselves. But everything seems so hyper political at this time that I doubt it.

                  Too many people want to kick the can down the road to the Supreme Court. They don’t want to deal with contentious, emotional, or difficult issues. They’d rather the Court just handle it for them. For example, I think each state should decide abortion laws, updating them whenever they want to. But this would be hard. Voters and legislators would have to actually work, discuss, and debate. Our country can’t seem to handle any meaningful discussion. It’s all ad hominem or thrown bricks.

                  It really does seem like the Left is creating a Single Party State. A dystopia. The battle in public schools against indoctrination and propaganda, such as CRT, is fierce. Moderate Democrats might not realize this, especially if they exclusively consume Left media, until it’s too late.

            2. Karen S,

              “ Because, so far, what Democrats have been pushing isn’t “balance”; it’s expanding the number of seats on SCOTUS so as to shift the entire Court Left, when seats are not vacant to fill as they come up.”

              No, democrats have been pushing for balance because that’s what they want. Expanding the number of seats isn’t an attempt to shift the entire court to the left. That’s not their goal. Republicans tell you that’s what democrats want because they are the ones who don’t want a fairer court. They WANT a conservative majority.

              “ Court packing means creating more seats in order to appoint more judges. It does not mean simply filling vacancies as they arise.”

              No, court packing means filling the court with ideologically similar justice in order to have a conservative or liberal majority or an entirely conservative or liberal Supreme Court.

              Expanding the court just means increasing the number of seats regardless of who is chosen. They are two different things.

              “ Rushing to confirm vacancies isn’t packing, it’s filling vacancies. ”

              It is packing when you’re rushing to confirm either conservative justices or liberal justices. Mitch McConnell was packing the lower courts by rushing to confirm as many conservative judges as he could. He was not just merely filling vacancies.

              “ Packing requires expanding a court in order to fill it.”

              No, packing does not require expanding the court. If there’s an open seat, putting a conservative justice on the bench with the intent to increase the majority of the court so it leans conservative is the very definition of packing. You can have multiple vacancies and every one is an opportunity to change the ideological makeup of a court such as it has happened with he Supreme Court. That’s what packing is. Expansion is an entirely different thing.

              “ That would mean that Democrats court pack every time they are in the White House and able to make judicial appointments. That means it’s always packing.”

              Yes that is true, but it is also true of republicans every time they are in the White House and are able to make judicial appointments. It goes both ways.

              1. Svalez, if “court packing” means simply filing open vacancies as legally allowed, then the term is meaningless.

              2. Try learning history. The SCOTUS has been LEFTIST for the MAJORITY of the time, over the last CENTURY, until just recently. AND Dems didn’t want “fairness” and “balance” over this last century to have more conservatives on the court to “balance” out the leftist-bend! You have been lied to, OR you are lying to us. That’s not what Dems want, they want POWER to bulldoze over our Supreme Court and Constitution (Democrat bills are and have been in the past unconstitutional)

      3. Democrats didn’t want to “balance” the Supreme Court when it had a majority LEFTIST ideological view, which was the case for a good chunk of the 20th century and now, into the 21st century, until Trump’s presidency. LOTS of VERY socialist/leftist unconstitutional laws were allowed to stand because the majority of Justices at the time leaned left, socialist. AFTER THOSE RULINGS, THE NEXT REPUBICAN PRESIDENTS (whether Reagan, Bush or Trump) DID NOT PACK THE COURT by adding more conservative Justices.

      4. Svelaz,

        We already had a liberal court for decades now and as you might have realized lately, elections have consequences, and you lost. There’s always Cuba, China, or some other communist country you can move to where you can enjoy a one party rule paradigm.

  4. In his USAToday editorial yesterday, Turley condemned Michael Flynn mustering as much moral indignation as he has ever leveled at a Trumpist:

    “For those who love our Constitution and our country, the statement of Gen. Flynn could not be more offensive or grotesque.”

    I applaud Turley’s denunciation of Flynn though I find his qualification “for those who love our Constitution and our country,” offensive since it presumes that there are those who don’t which feeds into the Trumpist narrative that those who don’t are Democrats.

    Turley further states that Flynn “appears adrift in the type of floating rage of the QAnon realm.” That criticism will come as quite a shock to the QAnon followers who populate this forum. Turley should have taken this opportunity as well to denounce the equally absurd claims of QAnon attorney Sidney Powell who asserted that Trump would be reinstalled in the White House by August. It’s curious that Turley would deliberately ignore that unhinged prediction though I’m sure many here believe Powell!

    Turley then makes a ludicrous statement of his own, “we should all (including former President Donald Trump) condemn Flynn for this public statement even if we disagreed with elements of his prosecution.”

    Seriously? On what planet is Turley? The very idea that Turley could imagine Trump condemning Flynn is insane!

    Turley’s call that “we should all condemn Flynn” was not heeded by his Fox News prime time colleagues. Can you believe that neither Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham nor Mark Levin (on his radio show) mentioned Flynn much less condemned him? Surprise, surprise, surprise!

    And yet these are the fair-minded, good-natured folks with whom Turley has become partnered. Is it any wonder then that Turley conceals his Fox relationship (unless he must disclose his association out of sheer necessity). Nor does he ever refer to his Fox compatriots. Why would he. On Ingraham’s show last night, there appeared these two Trumpist headlines:

    “Dems Trying to Govern a Country They Hate”

    “Dems’ Racial Division & Hatred Agenda Won’t Work”

    Turley concluded in his USAToday article, “we live at a time when people are addicted to rage.” How can he in good conscience ignore the rage expressed by his very own network? He must know it, and if he doesn’t, it’s only because he doesn’t want to know! Turley has thrown away his reputation by teaming with these hate-mongers. I pity him.

    1. What I find especially humorous is Turley claiming that Flynn “effectively” walked back his statements.

      He didn’t. What Turley ignores is that Flynn’s agreement on Myanmar’s coup SHOULD be what needs to happen here is perfectly in line with his past statements calling Trump to declare martial law and involve the military to overturn the election results. Turley “conveniently” forgot about that or he deliberately ignored it. Either way Turley is deluding himself in portraying these events as somehow isolated.

      1. Svelaz,

        You make a good point that Turley is unwilling to look at the larger context of Trumpism. He persists in the false narrative that Trump was acting in good faith in wanting to challenge the electoral count. He utterly ignores the “Big Lie.” Likewise, he ignored Liz Cheney’s purging. He had to; otherwise, he would have had to acknowledge her refusal to accept the Big Lie. By the same token, Turley has yet to critique the plethora of State laws restricting the vote because here, too, he would have to acknowledge the alleged justification of this impetus, again, the “Big Lie.” Two words he has never dared to mention in any of his many articles. And he likely never will; otherwise, he will have to explain what took him so long! It’s embarassing.

        1. Jeff Silberman, I agree. It really strains credulity that Turley is THAT ignorant about the larger picture. He’s a stickler for details and splitting hairs. Therefore he’s bound to know what his saying is not honest, he’s engaging in intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to be deemed an objective observer.

          He continues to portray Flynn as a victim rather than what he really is, an extremist. He lied to the VP, conspired to coordinate with the Russians and called for Trump to declare martial law, and now agrees with the notion that what happened with in Myanmar should happen here. Any competent lawyer would recognize the patter of behavior as that of someone who WANTS to overthrow our form of government.

    2. “ Turley concluded in his USAToday article, “we live at a time when people are addicted to rage.” How can he in good conscience ignore the rage expressed by his very own network? ”

      He’s not ignoring it. He’s being complicit in it. That’s why he’s “ignoring” it. He’s smart enough, knowledgeable enough, to be fully aware that Fox News one of the organizations that are stoking this “rage” he speaks of. He really can’t ignore it when it’s so obvious. He’s being deliberately complicit about it. This is why he took issue with another columnist calling him out on his hypocrisy about the Lafayette park issue.

      1. Svelaz,

        I suspect you are correct. And that fact probably explains why Turley has not been willing to submit to an interview by a reporter who might ask him these hard questions. You’ll notice that the Fox News prime time hosts NEVER grant interviews because they know that can’t defend their hate filled rants. So they avoid being held accountable. I’m afraid that Turley is also leery of being interviewed by a liberal reporter who will confront him with his blatant hypocrisy.

        I would like to know if anyone on this forum is a current student of his who can inform us whether Turley permits anyone in his class to question him about his Fox employment.

        1. Jeff Silberman,

          “ I’m afraid that Turley is also leery of being interviewed by a liberal reporter who will confront him with his blatant hypocrisy.”

          It’s a lot harder to defend your position while directly questioning your claims. Turley would be hard pressed to justify his obvious contradictions and hypocrisy without the benefit of having the time and freedom that allows him to parse his words carefully. This is why he’s upset with Salwell who publicly humiliated him by exposing his hypocrisy on the record.

          I believe Darren Smith works for Turley. I’ve noticed a few instances where he’s commented about issues other than moderation.

          1. “Turley is also leery of being interviewed…”

            What would be the reason the press would interview Turley? How his family functions? His golf scores?

            You have very little understanding as to what Turley does. No matter what broadcasting station he is on or what publication he is writing for, he provides his opinion based on his knowledge of the law.

            Jeff is hateful and envious because the left-wing Turley makes mincemeat out of the left-wing that has moved so far left that they have become untruthful. One even saw a debate of sorts at Trump’s impeachment. Turley shined.

            Jeff is so hateful he can’t open his eyes. Unfortunately, Svelaz, you follow suit because you cannot think for yourself.

            SM

            1. S. Meyer,

              “ What would be the reason the press would interview Turley? How his family functions? His golf scores?”

              It’s as if you really don’t pay attention or are just pretending to be ignorant.

              Turley’s opinions are open to questioning just like everyone else. Turley has been shown some of his views are contradictory or hypocritical and sometimes downright disingenuous.

              An interview allows us to have Turley defend his views in public under direct questioning of his views. Writing a column avoids scrutiny of his opinions and claims.

              This is not about being “hateful” or “jealous”. It’s about pointing out the obvious flaws in his opinions and claims.

                1. FishWings, we heard what you said, but do you know what he got right? Obviously not.

                  SM

              1. Are you saying Truly declines interviews? Can you tell us any reporter that tried to get an interview with Turley and couldn’t?

                If you can’t that makes you an as$. If you can provide a name, provide the details and evidence.

                That is what always gets you. You almost never have the facts.

                1. “Are you saying Truly declines interviews? Can you tell us any reporter that tried to get an interview with Turley and couldn’t?

                  If you can’t that makes you an as$. If you can provide a name, provide the details and evidence.”

                  The reason why it is difficult to even find an interview is exactly because Turley rarely grants them. The only “interviews” he has are those opinion segments in Fox News where he gets a paycheck from.

                  1. “The reason why it is difficult to even find an interview is exactly because Turley rarely grants them. ”

                    Svelaz that is double talk. What would be the reason for a reporter to chastise him? If they want, they can do it on Twitter or elsewhere. Have you heard any reporter claim they couldn’t get an interview with Turley?

                    Check back at Motel 6 to see where you left your brains.

              2. Svelaz, quoting SMeyer:

                “What would be the reason the press would interview Turley? How his family functions? His golf scores?”

                Svelaz, why waste your time responding to Meyer? If he doesn’t understand our words, perhaps he will understand our silence.

                1. Jeff Siblerman,

                  He may not fully understand, a clock is always right twice a day, So S. Meyer may get it once a while too. Sometimes the densest individuals show a ray of hope and as insignificant as it may seem. It is worth while. Plus it is good mental exercise to deal with those the likes of Allan. Keeps you sharp.

                  1. “Plus it is good mental exercise to deal with those the likes of Allan. Keeps you sharp.”

                    Such is the hubris of a dull knife.

        2. No hate filled rants, just truth, honor, justice, freedom and liberty. If you think this is “hate-filled” you do not support the USA Constitutional Republic and should move away.

          1. Katrina,

            Which country do you think I should move to? I’m thinking Moldova.

  5. So, you’re suggesting the threats from Democrats have succeeded in politicizing the SCOTUS.

    Your theory is that the justices are issuing a burst of unanimous opinions to please the bullying and whining Democrats rather than what they believe the correct Constitutional and statutory interpretation is.

    Take the blindfold off lady justice. The more accurate symbolism is to have her wearing a Democrat Party jersey.

    1. It seems many are misinterpreting the situation. The cases that have been reviewed are all non-controversial mundane issues that don’t particularly divide the court. These cases are more technical than ideological and therefore more apt to be viewed by the justices as more clear in their legal approach to them. The unanimous rulings may just be a coincidence due to the cases instead of an attempt to “send a message”.

      1. Svelez and Jeff, why don’t you just get a room and hook up. You are making the rest of us sick!!

        1. Paul, in case you can’t recognize it. That’s what having a rational discussion looks like. It’s a discussion, an actual discussion. Not an argument as it is often the case on this blog.

          If you are annoyed by it, you are perfectly within your right to ignore it. OR you can join and inject a different perspective. Pretty wild eh?

          1. Svelaz, you need to know some of the facts and the difference between fact and opinion for you to have a rational discussion. You fail miserably on both scores. Paul is entirely correct.

            SM

            1. And it seems Allan knows no depths when it comes down to showing off his cluelessness publicly.

              eb

              1. Unfortunately, bug, you don’t have the knowledge Svelaz lacks. As a result, you fall into the category of the talker without anything worthwhile to say.

                SM

            2. S. Meyer,

              “ Svelaz, you need to know some of the facts and the difference between fact and opinion for you to have a rational discussion. You fail miserably on both scores. Paul is entirely correct.”

              No Allan, what is evident is that you have serious reading comprehension problems. Paul interjected in a discussion, an actual discussion that he clearly didn’t recognize as a discussion. Just like you, interjecting on something like a clueless five year old would in an adult conversation with nonsensical explanations about differences between facts and opinions.

              You should go back to Trump’s blog and play with the rest of the five year olds. Oh wait…..they shut it down because there were not enough adults to keep it interesting. My bad.

              1. Svelaz, you have always been unable to prove a point because you have always been devoid of facts. It is distressing to pay so much in taxes to educate American children that their education was incomplete and left them bereft of any practical knowledge about the country where they live.

                That is why I called Paul’s reply correct. Of course, you can have a different opinion and accuse the other of a lack of knowledge, but you cannot debate another based on facts and logic. We have tried that before, and you always fail.

                SM

                1. S. Meyer,

                  “That is why I called Paul’s reply correct. Of course, you can have a different opinion and accuse the other of a lack of knowledge, but you cannot debate another based on facts and logic.”

                  You don’t even know what Paul said. He didn’t offer an argument or opinion. He made a derogatory statement involving sexual innuendo over something he didn’t understand. He HAD a lack of knowledge of what I was discussing with Jeff Silberman,

                  Here’s Paul’s actual quoted interjection. “Svelez and Jeff, why don’t you just get a room and hook up. You are making the rest of us sick!!”

                  So what exactly was it that you think about Paul’s response that was “correct”? All he did was put out a derogatory statement and YOU being the dumba$$ you are. Stupidly tried to pretend he said something meaningful and went off on something about facts and opinion. This is why you earned with all the glory it deserves the title of “dumba$$ of the day.”

                  1. “No Allan, what is evident is that you have serious reading comprehension problems.”

                    Svelaz, I read very well. Paul’s appropriate innuendo responded to the prior discussions along with the related ones involving Jeff.

                    Your brain cannot connect the dots, so you make assumptions about what Paul understands or doesn’t understand. Unfortunately for you, multiple people have been involved in similar discussions, but your brain was caught short missing what was said. That seems to be your problem, a deficient intellect.

                    You can go to those other discussions and quote whatever you think Paul said that wasn’t appropriate. I will be glad to do that with you. I understand the reason behind Paul’s comment. It was appropriate.

                    1. “Bring Allan to the blue tent for concussion protocal testing.”

                      I am glad to go to the blue tent to help assist you, but I think the fog is due to the recent ECT treatment you just had. I don’t think we need a CAT scan or anything of that nature since the only marks are from the paddles. We will just observe you for the proper time and sedate you with a bit of Haldol.

    1. LOL.

      That guest column wasn’t written by “writers/editors at Bloomberg News” or “they.” It was written by Harvard law prof. Noah Feldman, who testified before Congress in favor of Trump’s impeachment. You must think he was right about Trump’s impeachment too! After all, according to you, if he claims something, it must be true. He must also be correct that standing is “a critical law,” right?

      1. “That guest column wasn’t written by “writers/editors at Bloomberg News” or “they.”
        *****************************
        Great dodge but the by-line sinks you: “By Noah Feldman / Bloomberg News.” I see facts are not your friend. Oh and Feldman knows its arcane stuff, too. So learned opinions aren’t either.

        1. No, it doesn’t sink anything. It simply acknowledges that Feldman is a Bloomberg opinion columnist. He is not “writers/editors” (the s at the end of those words indicates plurals — do you often have difficulty distinguishing between a single person and a group or people?), and he’s not an editor at Bloomberg at all.

          If you’d like to see his other op-eds for Bloomberg: bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/AFZ_b1F72Xw/noah-feldman

          “Feldman knows its arcane stuff”

          Glad you agree with him that standing is “a critical law.”

        2. Mespo,

          “ Great dodge but the by-line sinks you: “By Noah Feldman / Bloomberg News.” I see facts are not your friend. Oh and Feldman knows its arcane stuff, too. So learned opinions aren’t either.”

          No mespo, you don’t understand how that works. The first name in a by-line IS the primary contributor. Bloomberg using the “/“ means they are just contributing by publishing it.

          Feldman still pointed out that standing law is critical to the function of the courts.

          You’re claiming Feldman “knows” after being shown that’s not what he says.

          Just as I can say you know you’re wrong.

          1. Sevvy:

            You win the Anonymous inspired “Obtuse Award” today. Feldman writes for Bloomberg. He’s a writer. He is described as “Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and host of the podcast “Deep Background.” He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.”

            Bloomberg is the editor for the contributor. They get to pick what goes in there.

            Words do mean thinks ya’ know. Maybe you and Anonymous can get together and parse ’em sometimes while we watch.

            Oh and by the way, standing is still arcane stuff.

            1. “Feldman writes for Bloomberg”

              Yep. He writes for Bloomberg Opinions (not Bloomberg News, the Albuquerque paper messed up that part of the affiliation) as a side gig. But he’s not plural “writers/editors” or “they.”

              “Words do mean thinks ya’ know. ”

              Yep. Which is why you were wrong to call Feldman “writers/editors at Bloomberg News.”

    2. As the article says, standing was created by the court. By definition this is not a law. As a result, the title of the abqjournal article is misleading.

  6. One possible driver on the courts unity may be the claim that some legal documents sent to the court from several state legislatures and pro-Trump legal teams did not apparently reach the Judges in time or at all in some cases. If this claim is true it means the legal documents were intercepted in the mail or at the supreme court mailroom itself. This would be the greatest legal scandal in western history if true. The Judges were working from home so the intercept could have happened on the way from the court to the judges home addresses. If true the investigation is likely underway and would be highly confidential. We may see a set of arrests come out of the blue and a major announcement. Then again it may be made permanently secret to cover the courts reputation or protect Biden or prevent conflict. Either way there may be nine very pissed off judges at the supreme court.
    We know some documents were delayed in transit for days so the question is whether it was an intentional error or just postal incompetence and can anyone prove it. There is also the question as to why special legal courier services were not used or were, due to Covid, not available.

    1. Wesley- They were too soon or maybe too late or on time but the issue was not ripe, or perhaps it was laches, or they weren’t sure they wanted to think about it.

      None of those things ever seem to matter when they want to stick there noses into something like gay marriage or execution procedures or ballot harvesting. The biggest issue in decades, perhaps since the revolution, and they are all out for lunch or bathroom breaks.

      I used to admire the Court. Now it seems to be someone’s political puppet.

      1. Mitch McConnell’s.

        Witness the Court’s roll over on election funding. On election protections. Next up: Roe vs. Wade.

        eb

            1. Bug, you are almost always fragmented. That is why you frequently don’t make sense. The rest of the time you don’t make sense because you don’t have the facts nor the logic.

                1. Yes, trying to understand a person as f/u as you has its problems. But, don’t worry. Your friends with similar conditions may be able to help you.

                  1. It’d probably pay off more for you to just concentrate on your reading comprehension and in maintaining whatever cognitive abilities you may have. Both seem to have experienced a fair amount of regression.

                    eb

  7. This isn’t the Roberts Court; it’s the Chicken Little Court. Claiming the sky is falling, they refuse to take national election cases on arcane stuff like standing (invented judicial cop out #1) but pontificate unanimously on issues that affect everyday Americans not at all. Guam’s federal funding? Now there’s a controversy akin to Brown v. Board of Education. Such raw courage in deciding the applicability of Sections 107 and 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, but nary a syllable about Pennsylvania’s Sect’y of State ignoring state law to change the voting rules midstream and sway a national election. Justice Taney’d be proud. You might recall Taney as the “hero” of the Dredd Scott decision that kicked the can of Civil War down the road for Lincoln to handle rather than grabbing the bull by the horns when bloodshed could have been avoided.

    Seems Roberts is cut from the same cloth. Lincoln wanted to arrest Taney following his equally stupid decision in Ex Parte Merriman that sought to stop the President from taking necessary action to preserve the Union by suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Let the Heavens fall, you know …. All the while, the country was burning – literally – while nine old somethings pondered the angel count of a pin head. Pin head? Boy, there’s an irony. History repeating itself with the same ostrich-headed dolts in charge still studiously parsing the sheet music as Nero Biden fiddles and New Rome burns.

      1. “As a lawyer, you should know that standing isn’t arcane.”
        ****************************
        And you should know that “standing” is a wholey judicial fabrication started in 1922 to permit courts to avoid serious public questions that citizens in a democracy deserve to have decided. At the country’s start, the only “standing” one needed for a constitutional case was to be a person or legally recognized entity and have a public right involved. If you think standing isn’t arcane and is clearer than mud, you need to read more cases on standing.

        1. arcane (adj.):
          known or knowable only to a few people, secret
          mysterious and known only by a few people

          It’s not arcane.

            1. Mespo, from the article, “An observer could be forgiven for suspecting that standing law is a game played by the justices to avoid the cases they don’t want and to take on the ones they do.”

              I consider myself an observer lacking expertise in the law. Therefore, in my mind, the above statement creates the suspicion that the justices can inappropriately utilize standing.

              Recently the Supreme Court made devastating decisions regarding lack of standing that caused havoc for the present and future. These were some of the most important questions brought before them.

              Yet, when I think back to Roe v Wade, I am reminded that the justices had to create standing and used the excuse that Roe might have another baby.

              Standing is arcane even though we are familiarized with the word because it is written in the news quite frequently. That is a problem for small minds where there is no big enough space to fit significant issues.

              1. S. Meyer:

                To give you an example of its absurdity and infinite malleability of the concept, Justice Douglas once argued in dissent that trees have standing to sue via their “advocates” in environmental cases because “[t]hose who have that intimate relation with the inanimate object about to be injured, polluted, or otherwise despoiled are its legitimate spokesmen.” Sierra Club v. Morton

                See its a loony notion.

                1. Mespo, my understanding is that states may not have the same standing issue. I think the state of Florida doesn’t, but I don’t know firsthand.

                  I hope that Turley will touch on the standing issue one day and include a whole bunch of cases so I can better understand how a case reaches the Supreme Court. In my opinion, Roe v Wade wasn’t a federal issue, but the Justices made it one.

        2. SEE? IT’S SIMPLE!

          And not reserved, solely, for academics, intellectuals and elitists.

          Mespo, thank you for that acute and sagacious revelation, clarification and edification. It’s arbitrary and dictatorial “fabrication” rather than the “manifest tenor,” with the end game being the insidious nullification of the Constitution and the full implementation of the principles of the Communist Manifesto.

    1. Mespo– Well put. Some of the same I have been rattling on about for months. The courts seem to be filled with stuffed, preening, self-satisfied cowards.

          1. “Thank you for the incisive recounting of the Tulsa massacre.”
            ************************
            Well, once we’re done with that historical pity party we can move on to the nation’s largest lynching in New Orleans. Victims: Italian-Americans. Every group has a sob story that can neither be changed nor ameliorated. Some use it as a political cudgel to cajole what they want, others go to work for what they want.

            https://www.history.com/news/the-grisly-story-of-americas-largest-lynching

            Like any other bad relationship, only when you get over it are you truly free of it.

            1. Tribal killings can occur to virtually any group if one looks. Neighbors turn on neighbors, yet some neighbors risk their own lives to save their neighbors. We have to stop the tribal divisions created by the left.

              Jedwabne is a name one should not forget. The documentary film Two Barns takes place in that Polish city. An explanation: “The documentary film ‘Two Barns’ examines the human soul, delving into the question what caused 1,600 Christian Poles to burn their 1,600 Jewish neighbors, with whom they lived for more than 800 years?” This type of hate is where our leftist tribalists lead us.

              Jedwabne was not the only barn-burning city.

            2. True enough on a basic level, Mespo.

              And my relatives on the Irish side would never have overcome their indentured servant status to go on and beome some of the best gangsters, prostitutes and rum runners without overcoming what had been foisted upon them. Thing is, when they left their misfortunes behind and walked down the street, they had white skin…, which automatically makes the comparison not exactly accurate and actually quite flawed.

              eb

      1. If you a Backhoe or any other kind of excavating equipment you should get on down here to Tulsa & give Biden & his Commies a hand.

        It’s like the Big Dig in Boston, for at least for 40 years if not more they dig here, nope, no dead bones of Nigerians there than race over to the next dig, nope, no bone of Nigerians over here either, & on & on they go. And the local/state news keeps hype… All Whiteys Bad, Get’um.

        Now the local Nigerians are calling for a large chunk of an interstate to be torn out down town…. I guess they think there must be bones under there also.

        Hell, if they wish to find dead bones of Nigerians all the need to do is go to Chicago, Baltimore, etc. most weekends. Plenty fresh ones there.

        BTW, those claiming to be survivors, the 1920 census has be out some time now & other public records, so far no one has found those claiming to have been here in the records?

        Regardless, those people demand we pay Reparations.

  8. I’m really tired of the Roberts Court. He is constantly working to “project” an image of the court. Instead of clear. plain, judicial exercise. He works harder pesenting a manufactured image, than writing opinions.

    Roberts is also the person in charge of the FISA Court. In that capacity he has refused to lift a finger to hold the FBI accountable for their illegal is of 702 lookups.

  9. The organizing principle is that the Democrats and their media enablers will take whatever position they think will help them gain and hold power.

    1. Then how come magats weren’t anally raped with cattle prods on the steps of the Capitol on 1/6?

      1. Bug, repetition of previously made responses of low quality the first time around, doesn’t improve with age.

        SM

        1. Standing question that bears repeating to all ‘the left is tyranny’ folks that repeatedly post falsehoods on this blog. You know, people like yourself, Allan.

          eb

          1. Bug, are you still unable to post content? Let’s debate what is on your mind. So far, it appears your fingers are acting independently.

            SM

  10. Anonymous points out: “JT, today, in USA Today:

    “Michael Flynn’s coup talk makes him the poster boy for an addiction to rage”

    Turley “bravely” condemned Flynn’s statement. Let’s see if he is *really* brave by posting this opinion on Foxnews.com instead of USAToday!

    1. Jeff, nothing is enough for you. If Turley announced the cure to cancer on Fox you would have a problem with it. He contributes occasionally on Fox. My guess is Fox aligns more with his philosophy on the role of government, free speech etc. Given the blatant lying on Fox’ s rivals ( cnn and msnbc leading the way) I can’t believe you basically attack Turley everyday about his very limited role on Fox. Cnn and msnbc would not have the balls to give Turley airtime. He gives his opinions from a conservative standpoint. So what? And for the billionth time, IT IS HIS BLOG!! For a while I bought into the
      ” just want to hold him accountable ” crap that you spew. The fact that your answer to EVERYTHING is he works for Fox shows a lack of basic fairness and objectivity. If he says something that is factually incorrect sure, call him out. But his part time gig on a network that you don’t care for does not negate his credibility. As much as you want it to be that way.

      1. Paul, buddy, relax. I don’t take issue with most of what Turley has to say. I resent what he doesn’t say. I direct my criticism at exposing this hypocrisy which most certainly undermines credibility. I don’t criticize Turley for being employed by Fox per se. I would criticize him just as much were he employed by Newsmax or One America Network or Infowars. Turley cannot complain about those who are addicted to rage while ignoring the rage of Fox opinion hosts. I’ll stop exposing his hypocrisy when Turley leaves Fox. Fair enough?

  11. The Democrats, ie the radical left and company. want a Woke Court and nothing short of that will do.

    1. And they’re going to do what they do best…throw a tantrum and scream and threaten until they get what they want. Why? Because it’s easier to threaten a few justices than to convince the majority of Americans to support their morally bankrupt, socialist, communist, democrat ideas. If you can’t win by the rules, then change the rules (it would never occur to Schumer or Blumenthal or Pelosi that they might be wrong). They are going to make hay while they’re in power, the the GOP should be learning a lesson (Got to hand it to Trump/McConnell for filling all the empty posts with justices…but the GOP are weak wimps when it comes to fighting for what’s right. They let the clock run out on Benghazi because to them, a hearing is taking action…when in reality, it’s a stall. Grow a pair GOP, or you’re going to keep losing to the folks who fight dirty.

  12. I just never get tired of you using the expression ‘pack the court’ after you pubiicly were a proponent of ‘packing the court’ when it was a Republican idea, Turley.

    eb

    1. Anonymous, packing the court refers to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to fill them, to create political control.

      While Turley has proposed expanding the Supreme Court, at no time has he ever espoused giving a single party the right to do so all at once. That’s court packing, not expansion. In fact, he’s repeatedly said that seats should be added gradually, so as to avoid giving any party undue influence or politicize the court.

      1. He’s walked back his original suggestion of increasing to 17-19. Biden has floated the thought of going to 13. And at no time has he said it should all be at once.

        Lol at your tightrope walk between “court packing” and “expansion”.

        Fact is, Turley is forever walking back a suggestion he made when there was sentiment the Repubs would get frozen out in the SCOTUS. It’s quite an inconvenient reality in Turley’s world, especially after McConnel effectively ‘packed the court by blocking the Garland nomination in Obama’s term and coresponding Dem calls in the 6-3 conservative court for an expansion to counterbalance it.

        It’s hilarious that Turley calls Dem speculation “court packing”, while his own more radical plan he considers ‘expansion’. Hence, I will always hold him account to a position he’s gone completely hypocritical on.

        eb

    2. Eb,

      I suppose the difference between “packing” a court as opposed to “expanding” it depends upon your motivation in appointing additional Justices. Turley’s previous justification of adding Justices was his complaint that the direction of the country ought not to be determined by the opinions of just 9 individuals. He was of the opinion that such momentous decisions should have a greater diversity of opinion like the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals which have many more judges on their benches.

      Turley’s justification then would apply just as well today though he does NOT advocate that his proposal should be implemented NOW by Congress. Why not?

      1. Exactly, Jeff. Which is why I always take the opportunity to call attention to his position(s). Especially when he writes using the term ‘court packing’.

        eb

  13. Here in PA I know THREE, yes three business owners who were forced to go out of business due to Governor Wolf’s unconstitutional “State Of Emergency” which lasted almost two years and in which, like other governors around the country, simply made up laws, just made them up like they were Kings and applied them only to certain people and business’ of their choosing. My wife’s hair dresser was in business for over 20 years in Childs PA, ‘JD’s Hair Salon’ was forced to go out of business for good a few months ago due to Wolf ordering her not to serve customers in-house. I won’t bore you with the other two people I know who lost their business, but will say one of them now works for a longtime competitor who was able to stay afloat and who also tried to buy-out his new employee’s business a few years a back. How humiliating for him to now have to work for this guy. He can thank Governor Wolf, or as we call him “King Wolf”…..

    1. Awesome. Now apply that to ZeroBama deciding which auto dealerships passed his “stress test”.

  14. One thing I’d like to ask Prof. Turley is, after the Supreme Court handling of the Nov 3, 2020 election so far is, as was basically stated by the court, was No party has Standing, not states, not the sitting prez, not the people.

    Isn’t those rulings in themselves unconstitutional Prof.?

    Who does have standing if Article 2, section 1, clause 2 is not also enforced?

  15. The important question in the “court packing” debate is why the communists (liberals, progressives, socialist, democrats, RINOs) are threatening the Supreme Court.

    The answer is that they know that their entire American welfare state is illicit, illegitimate and unconstitutional.

    Were a Supreme Court which supported the literal Constitution to suddenly appear, there would be no communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) because they and the principles of communism they espouse and impose are irrefutably unconstitutional, antithetical and anti-American.

    The manifest tenor:

    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, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 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.

    The entire communistic American welfare state 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.

    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.

    The incremental act of “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America…” began in 1860, contemporaneously with the progressive imposition of communism. Marx theorized the elimination of classes from society. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did it.
    ______________

    Freedom and Self-Reliance

    1. Today, if anyone really knew the constitution and really enforced it, the “professional politicians” of both parties would kill him/her. It would mean the end of their feed trough scheme. As it is now, no one can even explain the difference between a democracy and a republic.

  16. Jonathan, I love the site, I admire your intellect and I agree with you on a majority of the issue, but I am begging you to please stop allowing multiple people to be labeled “Anonymous”. I am not calling for any identification of particular people, I just want everyone to be able to identify when each particular “Anonymous” is commenting. There is one guy called Anonymous that takes over the section, berates others and seems to hate the site and you Professor Turley and if you would have, for example, Anonymous1, Anonymous2, etc etc, we could then ignore the one Anonymous that is ruining the comments section.

    Thanks!

    1. “please stop allowing multiple people to be labeled “Anonymous”

      I agree. Since everyone can create an alias with a distinct icon, I don’t think it significantly restricts anyone’s speech. It certainly would improve the dialogue on the blog.

    2. I think hullbobby should be barred from blaspheming the name of a hockey great on this stie.

    3. Personally, I wish he enforced his Civility Rule. But it’s his blog, and he gets to do what he wants.

  17. I love Jonathan Turley. There’s some calm voices during the storm and Mr Turley is one of those people. Byron York comes to mind.

  18. We don’t need court packing. The judges are protected by the Capitol Police.
    If ya carry a gun, ya put the libs on the run.

Leave a Reply