Justice Stephen Breyer has been a target of liberal groups for months as billboards and commentators call for his immediate resignation. It has backfired with Breyer pushing back on such pressure and reaffirming that he will stay on the Court so long as he is capable of carrying out his duties. Breyer has also opposed the same groups and a number of leading Democrats pushing for court packing. Breyer just reaffirmed his position (and that of other justices like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg) in opposition to court packing.
Breyer was asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace in a Sunday interview about increasing the size of the Court and Breyer responded “One party could do it, I guess another party could do it. On the surface, it seems to me that you start changing these things around, and people will lose trust in the court.”
Breyer struck out at court packing in an interview on Friday with NPR, noting “What goes around comes around. And if the Democrats can do it, the Republicans can do it.”
The Court itself seemed to be sending a message with a serious of unanimous and heavy majorities in the last term that the claims of a rigidly divided Court are overblown. Most cases do not show such deep ideological divisions.
President Joe Biden has refused to state his position on court packing and has assembled a commission to make a recommendation on the subject.
Breyer previously 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 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.)
Breyer’s warning of a retaliatory move by Republicans to engage in the same court packing has already been addressed by leading academics. Harvard professor Michael Klarman and others have not been subtle about the need to pack the court to guarantee an immediate liberal majority. Klarman has said the court must be changed to enact the Democrats’ sweeping agenda — and Democrats shouldn’t worry about Republicans responding with their own court packing if they return to power. Indeed, he explained, the point of changing the system with “democracy-entrenching legislation” is to guarantee that Republicans “will never win another election” unless they fundamentally change their views. Klarman conceded that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described,” so the court must be packed in advance to allow the desired changes to occur. [You can read Klarman’s full comments here]
In his interviews, Breyer has shown far greater courage and principles than Biden. As previously discussed, Biden has not been known as a politician who is motivated by such principles. Thomas Jefferson once advised his successors that “on matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.” Breyer continues to stand like a rock in the face of a campaign to force him off the Court and then pack the Court with an immediate liberal majority. His opposition is not due to any lack of liberal credentials. He is one of the most consistently liberal justices in the history of the Court, but he remains a justice of the Court first.
You see, the left doesn’t want this nation to be a republic. They want the nation to be ruled by New York and California. We see two states that are failure state and these are the two that they want us to emulate. There are those who post here he tell us that Trump cheated to win but if we say that Biden cheated to win the last days are eminent. If you live in a state other than New York or California do you want the values of these two states to be brought to your state? If you were a politician and there was no Electoral College why would you care about any other of the states other than New York and California. The influence of these to states would rule your nation. Good luck with that.
Thinkitthrough, sounds pritty accurate to me.
Yeah, sounds about right when you shut off your brain.
To bad you don’t have one.
Wow FishWings. You indeed are a master of wit an wisdom with your pithy response. You could have come up with an argument against the importance of the Electoral College but it would have taken to much mental effort. You could have told us of how a republic is inferior to a true democracy but you would have first have had an understand the difference between the two but you don’t. I’m sure that everyone here stands in awe of your amazing retort.
“The influence of these to states would rule your nation.
That is spot on.
In the 2020 election, those two states were about plus *6 million* votes for Biden.
In a majority-rule presidential election, the rest of the states might as well just stay home.
“In a majority-rule presidential election, the rest of the states might as well just stay home.”
Nonsense. Over 11 million people voted in FL, over 11 million people voted in TX, and one of the main ideas of calculus is that little bits add up, so the fact that a bunch of states have smaller electorates doesn’t imply that those smaller states would be unable to overcome the combination of CA and NY.
There was a reason for a federalist system and a reason for the electoral college. The left wants tyranny and that is best done when all the power is in the hands of one governmental power.
Think of 1215 and what the intent was and why. History tells you a lot that you do not know. 1215 didn’t push more power to the monarchy. In that period of time, you would have been considered a monarchist, but 1215 is important in the development a free America, something you seem to despise.
“In the 2020 election, those two states were about plus *6 million* votes for Biden.”
#1: Whether anyone likes it or not, the question exists whether the voting process was one vote per *legally voting citizen’
#2: Trump did not campaign in those states because strategically he wouldn’t win but his numbers could have been a lot higher had he done so.
Let’s see, now. We have a person who lost the popular vote but got into the White House by cheating, who was in a position due to 2 deaths of judges to nominate 3 judges to the SCOTUS for a LIFETIME appointment, after these judges were vetted by the Federalist Society specifically because of their anti- abortion ideology that is out of step with the beliefs of most Americans. These three each claimed, when questioned, that Roe v. Wade was settled law, but it appears they were fibbing or hedging their words. McConnell refused to allow Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland a seat on the court because of the proximity of the election, proclaiming this to be unfair, but when the tables were turned, this rule no longer existed. And, the Republican candidate was predicted by every poll to lose, after a 4-year run of historically low approval ratings. So, Gorsuch got Garland’s seat. If the McConnell Rule had been applied, Covid-Barrett wouldn’t be on the court. And, there were literally dozens of witnesses who begged to testify against Kavanaugh, but Republicans truncated the hearings to prevent this evidence from coming out which, we must assume, would be disqualifying.
So, now we have a clearly unconstitutional Texas law that the “majority” (including the 3 aforementioned) refused to enjoin. Four of the justices found this to be outrageous and wrote strong dissenting opinions.
So, now Republicans, who continue losing the support of the American people have packed the court with judges whose views are far-right of most Americans, but to do something about it by expanding the number of judges (which has been the case in the past) is somehow wrong? Why shouldn’t the court of last resort in this country have a bench comprised of judges whose views on key issues align with the varying views of the American people, instead of the ultra-right wing Federalist Society? Because Republicans got it done, and Turley is paid to defend it, that’s why.
Write your Senators, and tell them that you want them to investigate the complaints about Kavanaugh that were submitted under penalty of perjury, some alleging that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearings: https://web.archive.org/web/20181219040454/https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/ce/misconduct/kavanaugh-complaints
The 10th Circuit concluded that they could not investigate because Kavanaugh had already been confirmed to SCOTUS. But the Senate Judiciary Committee can investigate.
The dims would like to impeach Kavanaugh.
Would you agree that IF he committed perjury in his nomination hearings, THEN he should be impeached?
Bill Clinton lost his law license for lying under oath. Shouldn’t a Supreme Court Justice be held to that standard too?
Multiple people have alleged under penalty of perjury that Kavanaugh lied under oath.
Shouldn’t that be investigated? And if it instead turns out that those people themselves lied under penalty of perjury, shouldn’t they be charged with perjury themselves?
BTW, if you want to discuss it in good faith, then I suggest you avoid insults like “The dims.”
The dims dragged Kavanaugh through the mud. The learned this crap from the Kennedys and the Clintons. If you can’t defeat someone through force of honest argument then destroy their character. Remember Hilary, the women who accused Bill of assaulting them were either nuts or sluts. Yeah, this is a real classy bunch.
This is a better link: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/ce/tenth-circuit-judicial-council-issues-order-complaints-against-justice-brett-m-kavanaugh
It used to be at https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/ce/misconduct/kavanaugh-complaints, but that URL gave me an error message, so I used the Archive link in my previous comment at 5:17pm. I just found the new ca10 URL, and that’s a better link to use in communicating with your Senators than the Archive link.
“One party could do it, I guess another party could do it. On the surface, it seems to me that you start changing these things around, and people will lose trust in the court.”
Isn’t that what the left wants? They don’t want democracy or rule by law. They want to impose their type of tyranny.
I should add that for those on the left that want rule by law, freedom and individualism, they should think about some of the stupidity demonstrated by their leaders. I will repeat one of the recent stupid comments by a top Democrat.
House Democrats argue “we can’t go bankrupt because we have the power to create as much money as we need to spend…”
Video and discussion at: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/09/weimar-its-us.php
What could possibly be more tyrannical than cheating to get into the White House, packing the Court with ultra right wing idealogues, lying about losing an election and fomenting an insurrection to try to prevent the rightful winner from assuming office? There’s no “left” here distrusting the court–they are all ultra-right wingers whose views do not reflect the majority of Americans. Three of the members shouldn’t be there, and likely lied during their confirmation hearings just to get on the bench and do what they please. How is that NOT tyranny?
Can see you foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog.
Anonymous, she’s got Trump in her head and she can’t get him out.
Can you two be more ignorant of facts? Oh, don’t tell me, the voices in your heads said so, right?
No really, she has Trump in her head and she can’t get him out.
Sounds like you have voices in your head and you can’t get them out.
Court’s Majority Speaks For Minority
3 of the Court’s 6 Conservatives were appointed by a twice-impeached president who never won the Popular Vote. This becomes a problem in terms of real legitimacy.
One can go round and round claiming our Founding Father’s designed the Electoral College for good reason. It doesn’t matter! When a president loses the Popular Vote by 2%, he clearly represents less people than his opponent.
Therefore one can say that Trump’s 3 picks to the court do not reflect the values of Judges Hillary Clinton would have chosen. Yet Hillary represented more voters than Donald Trump by almost 3 million.
75% of all Americans live in the 20 most populous states. Yet that large majority has only 40 Senate Seats. While 25% of the country holds 60 U.S. Senate seats. Their votes were essential to installing Trump’s picks to the court.
Again, one can go round and round talking about ‘The Constitution’ and what our Founding Fathers intended. These lectures include the caveat that we’re really a ‘constitutional republic’. Like ‘that’ explanation should satisfy. The fact that 25% of the people hold 60% of Senate should be waved away by with the disclaimer we’re a ‘constitutional republic’.
If Democrats simply wait for the chance to get 3 picks to the court, many years could pass. In the meantime, Trump’s court could reshape the judicial landscape with rulings most Americans won’t like. Their handling of the Texas Abortion law suggests a certain arrogance.
You have a problem of living within the law. You are a danger to a free people and yourself.
Breyer is about as liberal as they come, so I think even Justice Breyer would agree with my statement above. What you have written above is a bunch of garbage that could be written by an ignorant person.
One can go round and round claiming our Founding Father’s designed the Electoral College for good reason. It doesn’t matter! (leftis literally hate the constitution)
It doesn’t matter what the founders designed.
It is critical importance what the PEOPLE voted on. Your complaint is not with the very prescient founders, but the people today that are required to change the constitution. But not by popular vote (democracy) but buy the people of each state ratifying the change by the super majority of the STATES. A very un-democratic structure. Because we are not a democracy. Because the Founders you so despise, did something you are incapable of. Studied History. History informed them, no government with a structure of democracy survived. Majority rule has always been a failure.
The solution was a hybrid mix of State Power, directed by the people. The States, United, would rule the federal government. Directed by the PEOPLE. But never the majority of the People.
The House, is the Peoples house.
The Senate is run by the STATES.
(for a reason)
If Democrats simply wait for the chance to get 3 picks to the court, many years could pass.
You don’t get it.
SCOTUS does not govern the nation. The People do.
I fail to see the down side of more babies being born. To be so backwards to equate the Texas legislation as some national emergency is delusional.
Impeachment simply means the impeaching party holds the majority in the House, nothing more, nothing less.
The “popular vote” is entirely irrelevant under the Constitution which provides for 50 state elections wherein the popular vote prevails in each.
You are a fraud. There is no benefit to be derived from reading your fiction. Please tell everyone.
Wait! What?
The “Court” was packed a long, long time ago.
There is no need for more than ONE Justice, other than regional coverage, as there can only be ONE “manifest tenor” of the Constitution which bears on a case.
No “interpretation” is necessary as “interpretation” is actually anti-American, anti-Constitutional fraud and deceit.
Justices have no power to modify law they disagree with, or to otherwise legislate.
The only contrary force and corrective action for incongruous decisions is impeachment for corrupt and treasonous Justices who reject and deny the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[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
________________
“Why Do 9 Justices Serve on the Supreme Court?”
The Constitution doesn’t stipulate how many justices should serve on the Court—in fact, that number fluctuated until 1869. Only since 1869 have there consistently been nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Before that, Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices required by law under John Adams to as many as 10 under Abraham Lincoln.
The U.S. Constitution is silent about how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. In fact, the office of Chief Justice only exists because it’s mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside…”). It’s Congress, not the Constitution, that decides the size of the Supreme Court, which it did for the first time under the Judiciary Act of 1789. When George Washington signed the Act into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
Why six? Because Supreme Court justices in those days were also appointed to sit on federal circuit courts, of which there were 13 in 1789, one for each state. Each circuit court would be presided over by three judges: one district court judge from the state and two Supreme Court justices.
“The justices had to spend almost the entire year traveling,” says Maeva Marcus, a research professor at the George Washington University Law School and director of its Institute for Constitutional History. “And the traveling conditions were horrendous.”
To limit the geographical area traveled by the justices, the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the circuit courts into three regions: Eastern, Middle and Southern. The reason that the first Supreme Court had six justices was simple—so that two of them could preside in each of the three regions. Marcus said that no one at the time quibbled about the fact that six is an even number, which leaves open the possibility of 3-3 split decisions. “They never even thought about it, because all the judges were Federalists and they didn’t foresee great disagreement,” says Marcus. “Plus, you didn’t always have all six justices appearing at the Supreme Court for health and travel reasons.”
– History.com
“Please note the following reminder of Biden’s position on adding a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of a President’s term.”
Please read the article you linked to.
It notes that Biden said “Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets…”
Garland was nominated in March, months before summer and either party convention. This entire rule-that-was-not-a-rule did not apply.
It also notes that Biden said that if Bush were to nominate someone in between the summer and the election anyway, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
McConnell ALSO refused to hold confirmation hearings on Garland after the election.
And after Justice Ginsburg died and McConnell scheduled hearings and a confirmation just weeks before the election, McConnell proved that it was all about Republican power and never about what Biden said.
So don’t pretend that McConnell was following what Biden said. He was not.
Oh dear Anonymous, you try to tell us that Joe Biden never said that an opposing party should not try to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. I provide another link by a very left wing member of the media. The link starts out saying, “Well this is awkward”. https://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/11094898/joe-biden-supreme-court. The content of this link provides direct quotes from Biden in his 1992 speech. Let me emphasize. in his very own words! There is no need for you to put words In Biden’s mouth because we have his exact statement. Nothing new here. We already know that an Anonymous reads the words he wants to read and disregards the rest. You need to spit the Garland thing out of your craw. I have a final question. Why are you answering for Fishwings.
“you try to tell us that Joe Biden never said that an opposing party should not try to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year.”
Because that’s a more extreme claim than what Biden actually said, and IF you paid attention to what he actually said, and IF you wanted to understand what he meant, THEN you’d understand that your claim is more extreme.
On June 25, Biden said that if there were a vacancy in between then and Election Day, the nomination should be put off until after Election Day, and that if the President nonetheless nominated someone before the election, then the Senate should have the hearings and vote after the election in November.
Here are “his very own words!” —
“Should a justice resign this summer …. President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. … [T]he Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
“The November election is completed” and “the political campaign season is over” on Election Day. He was solely talking about the period from “this summer” to Election Day. His very own words!
That is a period of less than 5 months, which is not even the majority of an election year. Garland was nominated more than 3 months before the period of time that Biden was talking about, and McConnell still refused to hold hearings after the 2016 election day, and McConnell then chose to hold hearings and a vote in 2020 during the very period that Biden addressed: between late June and the election.
“We already know that an Anonymous reads the words he wants to read and disregards the rest.”
You are looking in the mirror and describing yourself.
“Why are you answering for Fishwings.”
I wasn’t. I was correcting your false claim because we’re all better off when errors are corrected. If you don’t like it, then stop making false claims.
Who even cares what Biden says. He is a liar and is on the take. He has not been known to be an intelligent leader.
A year ago we were energy independent. Now we’re buying oil from the Russians. Could this be collusion?
You are nothing but an ultra political hack who has little historical knowledge, that can be reasonably applied to these discussions.
Coming from you I’ll take that as a compliment.
So don’t pretend that McConnell was following what Biden said. He was not.
McConnell is following the Constitution. Not a soul in DC follows Biden. He has always been twit.
It was legal, but McConnell was also lying to the public about his reasons. Politicians don’t have to lie. It’s a choice. We’re better off with politicians of all parties who don’t lie to us, even though it’s often legal for them to do so.
Turley writes that Klarman “explained, the point of changing the system is to guarantee that Republicans ‘will never win another election.’ Klarman conceded that ‘the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described,’ so the court must be packed in advance to allow the desired changes to occur.”
Once again, Turley quotes only one or two phrases from what someone said, then fills in the rest in his own words in a way that misrepresents what the person said, and chooses not to even link to the full statement so people can see what the person actually said.
It’s dishonest. Shame on Turley for doing this.
Here’s more of what Klarman actually said:
“The main argument against enlarging the size of the court is that it would lead to a retaliatory cycle …. There are three responses to that concern. …
“The third argument that this won’t lead to a retaliatory cycle is this: If Democrats win, as they are likely to do, they would have to pass democracy-entrenching legislation, by which I mean simply making it easier to vote, doing away with partisan gerrymandering, making Election Day a holiday, making voter registration automatic, ensuring more days of early voting, and making sure that Black people in Atlanta don’t have to wait five hours to vote while white people in Cambridge wait just 30 seconds to vote. If you do all of that, the Republican Party will never win another election unless Republicans change their policies to make them more appealing to people. They’ll have to give up their racism, their misogyny, their homophobia, and xenophobia. They’ll have to give up their aversion to universal health care, to raising the minimum wage, and to providing free college education and free childcare for parents of young children. All of these policies command substantial majority support in public opinion.
“Republicans will have to become a reasonable party that responds to dominant public opinion. But the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described, and that’s something the Democrats need to fix. If they do that, the Republican Party will become a different Republican Party ….”
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/10/legal-scholar-warns-of-potential-supreme-court-changes/
I’m not saying that Turley had to quote all of that. But he’s smart enough to be able to summarize it without so dramatically misrepresenting what Klarman actually argued.
Klarman is saying that the Democrats “would have to pass democracy-entrenching legislation,” in which case “the Republican Party will never win another election unless Republicans change their policies to make them more appealing to people,” and “the court must be packed in advance to allow the desired changes [i.e. democracy-entrenching legislation] to occur.” This is barely longer than what Turley himself wrote, and a much more truthful summary of Klarman’s argument.
By the way, everyone should be clear that by “democracy-entrenching legislation” Klarman is NOT arguing for legislation to entrench Democrats. He quite explicit that it would only entrench Democrats IF Republicans refuse to “change their policies to make them more appealing to people.”
He’s not proposing anything extreme in that democracy-entrenching legislation. It should not be harder for people to vote than to act on other rights, and gerrymandering undermines the public good.
He wants Republicans to be failures like Biden is in Afghanistan and our Southern Border, naming two out of the many failures of the Biden administration?
He’s an ignoramus.
I didn’t read carefully enough. Turley did link to Klarman’s full comments this time, though often Turley quotes people without linking to the original. I was wrong when I wrote that he chose “not to even link to the full statement so people can see what the person actually said.”
Wow, no, I did read carefully enough before posting my 12:19pm comment, and Turley has now changed the column a bit! (This is clear because I copied and pasted what I quoted from Turley, and THAT text has now changed in the column.)
I’m glad that he changed the column to more accurately represent what Klarman is actually arguing and link to Klarman’s full comments. Still it would be better if he notes when he updates a column, as is common with MSM articles (e.g., “This article has been updated to …,” explaining the purpose of the update, in this case to more accurately represent what Klarman is actually arguing and link to Klarman’s full comments).
poppycock
No, it isn’t poppycock. Turley edited the column after I wrote my initial comment. We know that because I copied and pasted “explained, the point of changing the system is to guarantee that Republicans ‘will never win another election.’ Klarman conceded that ‘the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described,’ so the court must be packed in advance to allow the desired changes to occur” directly from the column into my comment, and the text in the column has since been changed to “explained, the point of changing the system with ‘democracy-entrenching legislation’ is to guarantee that Republicans ‘will never win another election’ unless the[y] fundamentally change their views. Klarman conceded that ‘the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described,’ so the court must be packed in advance to allow the desired changes to occur. [You can read Klarman’s full comments here]”
The parts in bold were not there when I first posted my comment. Turley was misrepresenting Klarman’s argument, and he’s still doing so a bit, but not nearly as badly. He initially didn’t link to Klarman’s actual statement so that people could read it for themselves. This isn’t the first time that Turley has misrepresented people’s arguments and failed to link to the original. For an academic, it’s exceptionally sloppy. It’s a terrible example to set for his students.
Klarman declares that the American people agree with all his opinions and therefore packing the Supreme Court would be justified in order that the people be heard. There’s just the little problem of the support for packing the court by the people. https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/04/23/2216222/0/en/Americans-Are-Clear-Don-t-Pack-the-Supreme-Court.html. One might respond that the polling is from a right wing organization. To ease such fears I present a link from a moderate to left source. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/549966-americans-agree-court-packing-is-dangerous. I guess Mister Klarman’s views on what “the people want” didn’t take into account the reality of what they really want. Anonymous, you want more voting but you don’t want to see the people voting with there opinion in polls that you would rather hide from our eyes.
“Klarman declares that the American people agree with all his opinions ”
You’re a liar.
The left has loved Justice Breyer for many many years. Now that he will not go along with their agenda they want to kick him to the curb. They must wonder how he has gone so wrong. No matter, they must now do what ever is necessary to eliminate him from the game. Their quest for power is governed by the whatever is necessary operandi. “The Prince” still remains their all time best seller and Machiavelli their all time greatest author.
Once the Democrats get control of the military, they’ll pack the courts and much, much more. Without nukes, they can’t win a war they start, and they know it. There are many instances of Democrats trying to subvert the military in broad daylight, and the whole insurrection thing isn’t about January 6th. It’s about convincing the military to drone strike anybody who objects to the DNC’s one-party takeover of the federal government.
I just wonder if split-ticket voters understand what’s happening. What’s happening is that a shrill but growing minority is getting increasing control of the federal government, and these would-be dictators are very impatient.
What I think you are also saying is that for this nation to remain free, those that are freedom loving Democrats should vote solid Republican to destroy the New Left’s Democratic Party. These leftists are tyrants, not JFK Democrats. They need to be sent a message quick, and midterms are the quickest way.
Agreed!
Seven days in May.
You got it. Good movie. Who would have guessed the generals in real life would be a leftwing junta.
If a Democratic Senate had done what Mitch McConnell did with the SCOTUS and the judicial branch over the years, Turley would be singing a different tune. As he did with the issue of impeachment.
FishWings, Garland certainly is stuck in your throat. Please note the following reminder of Biden’s position on adding a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of a President’s term. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/sep/21/context-there-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/. I know, you find it a moral imperative to dance to whatever tune their playing.
My reply got decoupled and posted above. Here it is again:
“Please note the following reminder of Biden’s position on adding a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of a President’s term.”
Please read the article you linked to.
It notes that Biden said “Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets…”
Garland was nominated in March, months before summer and either party convention. This entire rule-that-was-not-a-rule did not apply.
It also notes that Biden said that if Bush were to nominate someone in between the summer and the election anyway, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
McConnell ALSO refused to hold confirmation hearings on Garland after the election.
And after Justice Ginsburg died and McConnell scheduled hearings and a confirmation just weeks before the election, McConnell proved that it was all about Republican power and never about what Biden said.
So don’t pretend that McConnell was following what Biden said. He was not.
Does it ever matter in the facts, it does not, they don’t care.
I am still waiting on any facts related to Turley & the impeachment, as well as McConnell & SCOTUS.
SO: no hearsay but actual evidence, could you please provide those to sustain your statement?
There are many who comment here who obviously posses a high degree of education. They say let’s look at it from this or that point of view. However, we should just cut to the chase. Stalin said the Trotskyist party should be expunged from Russia forever even if we must scour the world to find our enemies and eliminate them through the insertion of an ice pick at the base of the skull. Now a Harvard professor wants to eliminate an opposing party from the face of America. History is such an inconvenience to those who desire to dictate.
“Now a Harvard professor wants to eliminate an opposing party from the face of America.”
Klarman himself hasn’t argued that.
You can always tell a Harvard man, you just can’t tell him much.
Breyer is correct.
There is lots of reference to lefties and eighties. There are also centrists. And “above grounders” and ” below grounders”. Then religious fanatics.
>> The Court itself seemed to be sending a message with a serious (sic) of unanimous and heavy majorities in the last term that the claims of a rigidly divided Court are overblown. Most cases do not show such deep ideological divisions. <<
If I am interpreting you correctly here, you seem to be suggesting that there have been more unanimous and heavy majority opinions in the most recent term than in prior terms. If that is true, then why aren't you alarmed that the Democrats threats to pack the court have already caused it to succumb to political pressure?
“If that is true …”
It’s not true. If you want to look at the statistics, SCOTUSblog’s annual statistics have the info: https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/
The fact is that the plurality of rulings are generally unanimous. This doesn’t change the fact that the court regularly splits along liberal-conservative lines, and last year was no exception, despite JT’s desire to pretend it was.
I still think the court packing idea you had awhile back was the best remedy for what faces us now, Turley. It was actually a bigger, more liberal, move than what Biden has talked of. Don’t be afraid of your past, Jon. Go with it even though you pitched it during a time of greater democratic representation than there is now.
eb
“To guarantee that Republicans will never win another election.” How naive. You’d think, by their hubris, that the Democrats had a whopping majority in both houses and a real leader in the WH. But Harvard prof Klarman, like too many liberal academics today, are spending too much time in the ivory tower and not enough time in the streets. Liberal elites are under the false assumption that they really do control the country, and the media and Biden administration are empowering them…for now. But political power is a fickle thing, and these myopic elites are in for a real shock in 2022.
If you’d read Klarman’s actual statement instead of JT’s misleading summary (which JT has since edited to somewhat improve it), you’d find that Klarman did not propose “To guarantee that Republicans will never win another election.”
Some of the PACs and attention grabbing politicians remind me of a toddler in the grocery store line throwing a screaming tantrum because mommy said no.
The 24/7 news machine needs controversy. They need “news.” If it weren’t for that, these drama seekers wouldn’t have a platform. Perhaps they could spend there time reading enriching books or helping their fellow man.
I generally disagree with his judicial opinions, but I respect his integrity and his view of the Court.
I generally disagree with his judicial positions, but I respect his integrity and his view of the Court
In the Leftist world-view, there is no yesterday, only the fierce urgency of now in the service of tomorrow — which they feel rightfully belongs to them.
~Michael Walsh
Lefties really don’t think past the next move.
They think, pack the courts and wallow in victory.
But life always has a counter move.
And revenge usually goes lower.
We will all lose.
Righties have no ideas, only selfish motives and love for authoritarian mental defectives like MAGA Lindell, Sidney, and that paragon of virtue aka Bill Barr.
The Democrats have been become illiberal and authoritarian as well. Currently, they frighten me more than Republicans. “We live in a time of monsters.”
Righties have no ideas,
Of course they have ideas, just not ideas you support, apparently. Here’s a few:
– rule of law, not lawfare
– energy independence
– secure elections
– education, not racist indoctrination
– keeping terrorists out of our country
– secure borders
– security of rights for all citizens
Tell us what ideas you support and I will give you my best explanation as to why Conservatives might not support them.
Maybe be more specific and tactical, Olly. Most of your points are rhetorically strategic but generalized. Energy independence being the most drawn out and specific.
Actually I believe in energy independence as well. But I’m guessing you’re talking oil and gas. I support a hasty conversion from combusting those fossil fuels over to more sustainable sources of power.
eb
You correctly point out EB that my list reads more like measurable strategic goals. That being said, before any effort is made to flesh out objectives to achieve the goals, we need consensus on the goals.
For instance, good point on energy independence. I am thinking of all sources that are currently available. I wouldn’t agree to abandon any source before a replacement is secured.
And that will obviously happen through the sort of government subsidization the fossil fuel industry received. And receives. At least initially. Since there is way more bang for the buck in sustainable it will ultimately prove to need not nearly that level of subsidization, as it will have a much greater ROI. We’re actually not far from that point now. Just a matter intentionality.
eb
A bit of a skewed comparison too as sustainable power, by definition, is inexhaustible. Fossil fuels must be drilled, burned and converted, then distributed. Sustainable skips the whole front end of that process. It’s problem lies with getting into the grid because presently the grid is controlled presently by people who burn combustibles at one end of them. Also, as climate change is proving, having one grid, powered by one source is unrealistic in climate change conditions. As Louisiana is learning now, just like NY did in superstorm sandy, massive power outages are more quickly remedied my having many separate contributors to the power supply rather than just one. Multi sourced systems are much more efficient anyway since the further out power gets from where it’s generated the weaker it tends to get. Multi sources equals an easier to maintain consistent flow.
Also having more contributing sources better fits in with battery technology to maintain power in down times. Two things need to happen ASAP…, an active decision to move to, not so much toward, sustainable. And designing and building a grid that more fits our current energetic and climatic reality. Your dad’s energy generation model, and how to think about energy generation, is no longer appropriate.
Time to switch over is now, every minute wasted is exponentially more damaging long term.
eb
It’s problem lies with getting into the grid
No. The problem is wind and solar cannot be stored. Very plain very simple.
If you wanted safe carbon zero energy, we would be a nation with100% electric by nuclear power.
That we are not, exposes all the greens lies.
The biggest problem with nuclear, there is very little left to grift.
“The problem is wind and solar cannot be stored”
Excess energy from renewable sources can be stored (in batteries, in thermal storage, …). People continue to work on improving methods of storing this energy.
Storing the source is so much more energy efficient. Batteries have improved, but I still can’t stretch my phone into a hour work day. If we cant even scale a cell phone battery, scaling NYC is a long way off. But cheap nuclear is the here and now, and ignored. There in tells the lie.
20 years ago there was a proposal to build 120 wind turbines on Martha’s Vinyard Sound and Nantucket Sound. You guessed it, it never happened. Guess who stopped it, rich liberals. Walter Cronkite was in the vanguard. He said he couldn’t sail his yacht on the sound because of the wind turbines. Those turbines would have made Cape Cod and the islands energy independent. This area off Cape Cod is one of the most consistently windy areas in the entire country. Missed opportunity.
Independent, in the early 1900’s Edison and perhaps Henry Ford were trying to use alternative energies. This included battery cars and the individual generation of electricity.
EB,
There’s nothing wrong with having a vision for energy independence based on sustainable sources. However a vision does not satisfy current demand. If it did, it would no longer be a vision but a current state. What is being done now with a vision for sustainable energy would be similar to California having a vision for water independence via desalination plants and shutting down our Colorado river supply first.
I hope you are not feeble minded enough to believe this country would get enough energy to functioning on.
SB8 in Texas is the epitome of lawfare. You’re in denial if you think righties believe in the “rule of law, not lawfare” and “security of rights for all citizens.” Both sides want most of your list.
bill mcwilliams made a false overgeneralization, and you did the same in response.
“Both sides want most of your list.”
Bull. Both sides might support Ollie’s list but the left is doing everything it can to do the opposite.
If you wish to debate point by point, let’s do so. You and eb against Ollie and myself. Let’s put some skin in the game. We can all identify ourselves with our alias’ or in your case you can create an icon and a name. eb can create an icon.
If you wish we could start with secure borders since every day Trump was in office our borders became more secure. Biden has destroyed any notion of secure borders.
I await you in debate without insults, hateful rhetoric or any of that garbage.
Maya Angelou: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
You have already shown me who you are Allan / S. Meyer / SM / Anonymous who regularly refers to others as “Anonymous the Stupid” / …
I’ve read Maya as well. You have shown who you are at least on a blog where real names etc. aren’t attached to the individual. However, you have shown something deep down that is ugly.
As have you, both with your insults and your counterproductive hyperbole like “the left is doing everything it can to do the opposite.”
Anon– “Allan / S. Meyer / SM / Anonymous who regularly refers to others as “Anonymous the Stupid” / …”
***
Actually he only refers to you as Anonymous the Stupid.
He has his reasons.
👍
Olly, if Anonymous doesn’t want to debate me because of Maya Angelou, I’ll drop out and you can debate him and eb alone. That won’t be a problem for you. Eb is a detriment to any debate and anonymous is a coward without critical thinking skills.
bill McWilliams, Those on the left loved Bill Barr when he wouldn’t stand with Trump on election interference. Now you say that he was an authoritarian. I understand. It’s indelibly stamped on your brain so you have to write it down.
“Righties have no ideas, only selfish motives and love for authoritarian mental defectives ”
That is why the left supports BLM riots and destroying the homes and workplaces of normal citizens. That is why the left encourages criminal behavior and permits rapists and murderers to cross the southern border while helping the cartels transport drugs that are killing our young.
You support authoritarian would-be dictators. The Democrat Party of today is not the Democrat Party of JFK.
Once again Monument is spot on. The Democrats play checkers while conservatives play chess. The problem is that the Democrats also play hardball while the Republicans play underhand softball. We may see the Dems add 4 (odd that they pick that number) seats to the Court while Biden is in the WH and then if the Republicans manage to take back control of the senate and WH we will see guys like Lindsay Graham saying
“we shouldn’t add seats, it is to outside the norm”.