This week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) finally buried her former persona as a law professor. In a transition that began in 2011, Warren has struggled with the demands of politics that often pit her against core legal principles.
Despite the fact that the Court has more often voted on non-ideological lines (and regularly issued unanimous decisions), Warren denounced the Court as an “extremist” body that has “threatened, or outright dismantled, fundamental rights in this country.” Those “fundamental” values do not apparently include judicial independence.
What is most striking is Warren’s use of a clearly false premise: that the Republicans packed the Court first: “This Republican court-packing has undermined the legitimacy of every action the current court takes.” She is referring to the Republicans refusing to vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland during the Obama Administration. Many of us criticized the lack of a Senate vote at the time. However, that is not court packing. It did not add seats to the Court. The Senate has the constitutional authority to vote or not to vote on a nominee. It was perfectly constitutional. What Warren is advocating is the addition of seats to the Court, which the Congress can do but most voters oppose as unprincipled and dangerous.
For Warren to call the Garland controversy “court packing” is all that you have to know about her column. She knows that that was not court packing, just as she knows that court packing is fundamentally wrong. However, the Warren op-ed was her Rubicon where she crossed over from being a law professor to being a politician.
That transition has not been an easy one for Warren. As an academic, Warren was described as a “die-hard conservative” who was a leading advocate for corporations. All of that had to go when she decided to seek the Democratic nomination for the Senate. Even more has to go if you seek the Democratic nomination for president (an even greater priority now as Democrats and media figures seek alternatives to President Biden).
Academics often evolve in their views of constitutional or statutory issues. However, Warren never made the transition from a corporate defender to an anti-corporate activist in her academic writings. It came largely after her entry into politics without an explanation of the reasons for adopting the new positions. The fact is that Warren had some interesting scholarship in the business law area and it would be equally interesting to understand why she has moved away from those positions.
That however was not enough. In the age of rage, one has to show that you are willing to do what others are not willing to do . . . like tear down the leading judicial institution in our constitutional system. If you are going to run in the Democratic primary, you need to be a “made” politician who has demonstrated that you can dispense with the niceties of the Constitution and do what makes others cringe. After all, how does the Court “benefit us”? Those other candidates may support higher taxation or spending bills but they are weaklings if they balk at packing the Supreme Court.
There is a sense of release in crossing that Rubicon. You are no longer burdened by the need to justify one’s actions in light of constitutional history or values. For example, during the confirmation hearing for Justice Kavanaugh, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) demanded that Kavanaugh promise to respect stare decisis on cases like Roe, but then called for overturning cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
It is the same glaring hypocrisy of democratic leaders like Warren denouncing the conservative majority as “partisan” while demanding the packing of the court to guarantee an immediate liberal majority.
The Warren column is perfectly Orwellian in declaring that the Supreme Court now “threatens the foundations of our nation” while using that claim to destroy our highest court. It is the judicial version of the explanation in the Vietnam War that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Warren would open up the Court to continual manipulation by shifting majorities in Congress — recreating the Court in the image of our dysfunctional Congress.
So, on December 15, 2021, Elizabeth Warren finally transitioned to being a pure politician unburdened and unrestrained. From “Tax the Rich” to “Pack the Court,” Warren is now soundbite ready and principle resistant for 2024.
Although the preferred nomenclature is Native American; hindsight is 1/1024
“Although the preferred nomenclature is Native American;”
+++
Not actually preferred by American Indians.
Great video.
“ Warren’s solution is to change the Court to make it more amenable to the demands of public (and her) opinion.”
Turley, republicans have already done that with the current court. Republicans sought for years to pack the Supreme Court with more conservative justices to make it more amendable to THEIR demands and that of the conservative public’s opinion. The precise reason why Garland’s nomination was held up was because they WANTED a conservative majority, because they wanted Roe to be overturned. It was their opinion that the Roe was wrong and that’s why they literally packed the court with more conservative justices to justify overturning Roe.
Your claims of court packing being wrong ring just as hollow when you ignore the very act of holding off Garland’s nomination just to put a conservative justice on the bench. You have no standing to complain about Democratic lawmakers seeking to do the same. You KNOW that what they seek is constitutionally permissible and well within their prerogative just as conservatives were able to legally withhold voting on whether to consider Garland’s nomination. You effectively supporter court packing when you justified Mitch McConnell’s obvious intent to put more conservative justices that would rule in their favor. The very definition of court packing.
Once again Turley’s hypocrisy stands out in stark contrast to his alleged principles.
Wrong as usual. Though one might complain about Garland, the law clearly makes what the Republicans did legal and Constitutional. Harry Reid, a Democrat, started this game.
You need to learn what ‘packing the court means.
Once again, you use the wrong terms and draw conclusions based on your lack of facts. The only recent figure that threatened the Supreme Court in such a fashion was FDR, a Democrat.
Each party gets its chance under the law. The Democrats had their’s and passed Roe. Both sides wish to control the court, but Democrats will do so at the expense of the nation’s integrity.
S. Meyer, packing a court is also legal. In case you didn’t notice, as usual, there’s nothing in the constitution that states congress is prohibited from doing so.
The constitution doesn’t state that congress can’t change the number of justices in the Supreme Court nor does it specify that that it be ideologically neutral.
Republicans already have successfully packed the court to their advantage. That was their intent. Now they and Turley are complaining about democrats seeking to change that advantage despite the fact that they have a constitutionally grantee prerogative to do so.
It has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with the venality of those who would destroy this nation to gain power and wealth. I have already provided an alternative way of increasing the number of justices so that politics is less involved or not involved at all.
If you believe the Supreme Court needs to be enlarged, you will agree with the direction of my solution.
If you disagree with the idea I am attempting to promote, all that means is you are a venal person who has no principles, morals or ethics.
S. Meyer,
“ It has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with the venality of those who would destroy this nation to gain power and wealth. I have already provided an alternative way of increasing the number of justices so that politics is less involved or not involved at all.”
The constitution doesn’t care about venality of those in power. Trump is one good example.
Democrats doing what republicans did won’t destroy this nation. It will upset the republicans sense of entitlement or their egos, but nothing more.
Your alternative is highly impractical and legally problematic.
“ If you believe the Supreme Court needs to be enlarged, you will agree with the direction of my solution.”
I believe the Supreme Court should be enlarged. However that doesn’t require any agreement on your solution.
“ If you disagree with the idea I am attempting to promote, all that means is you are a venal person who has no principles, morals or ethics.”
LOL!! Witherspoon disagreed with your idea too. Does that mean he is also venal and without principles, morals, or ethics?
Nobody has to agree to your impractical solution. Much less consider it.
“Democrats doing what republicans did “
Wrong. Republicans did what Harry Reid did. Additionally, we can see that you don’t know what the word borked means.
“Witherspoon disagreed with your idea too.”
He didn’t disagree, but thought it might be unworkable. It is not impractical and could be modified so there would be a shorter time frame. You are a venal person. I want to see better government and therefore not permit either party to pack the Supreme Court.
S. Meyer, it’s so obvious when you don’t pay attention to what you’re reading.
“ Wrong as usual. Though one might complain about Garland, the law clearly makes what the Republicans did legal and Constitutional.”
Nope. I pointed out that it was indeed legal,
“ You KNOW that what they seek is constitutionally permissible and well within their prerogative just as conservatives were able to LEGALLY withhold voting on whether to consider Garland’s nomination.”
“Your claims of court packing being wrong”
“You effectively supporter court packing when you justified Mitch McConnell’s ”
You are right. I should have said wrong and dumb as usual. None of these things are illegal though some are unprincipled. I pointed that out, but you haven’t yet obtained a predigested answer from your talking points memo.
So, let’s see… it’s OK for leftist Presidents to nominate “leftist” judges, but a conservative President nominating “conservative” judges is somehow Court-packing? Warren et al. have abandoned our founding principles – so, while they may enjoy the prerogatives of citizenship, they can no longer claim to be Americans.
That is Svelaz’s logic. All one has to do is look up his past comments to see his faulty logic in action. Maybe I will post some more of his posts where he finally had to run away in embarrassment.
Misstressadams,
“ So, let’s see… it’s OK for leftist Presidents to nominate “leftist” judges, but a conservative President nominating “conservative” judges is somehow Court-packing?”
Nobody is saying conservatives are not allowed to nominate conservative judge’s. If it’s ok for conservatives Presidents to nominate conservative judges it’s ok for “leftist” presidents to do the same. Both are intents to pack the courts.
Svelaz is just employing another common and deceptive liberal tactic, changing the meaning of a word or term for no reason other than to make it work for their political views. In this case it’s redefining the term “packing the court”. Sorry, but in this case the rest of us will stay with the true meaaning.
“Svelaz is just employing another common and deceptive liberal tactic, changing the meaning of a word or term for no reason other than to make it work for their political views. “
Carpslaw, that is correct for some Democrats, but not for Svelaz. He doesn’t have the intellect. He is merely repeating phrases and as soon as thinking is involved he ends up where he shouldn’t be.
S Meyer,
“Carpslaw, that is correct for some Democrats, but not for Svelaz. He doesn’t have the intellect. He is merely repeating phrases and as soon as thinking is involved he ends up where he shouldn’t be.”
LOL!! The very fact that you can’t recognize a nuanced discussion or comprehend context shows us that you are indeed not very bright. By making insults galore and the constant denigration you are just covering for your inability. It’s perfectly understandable.
“you can’t recognize a nuanced discussion”
Svelaz, what you call your nuanced discussion is not nuanced. Instead, it is your inability to know what words and phrases mean.
Look up the word nuanced. It doesn’t mean dumb which is what your nuanced discussions are about.
carpslaw,
It’ not a tactic. It’s common sense. Complex issues such as these require that you be able to distinguish nuances in the meanings of words. Meanings change according to context. The meanings of words HAVE to change in order to make sense of the context in which they are applied. This is basic english 101.
What you are not understanding is the fact that this is a complicated issue and it can’t really be argued by sticking to simple rigid meanings. Smarter people would understand. You can stay with the “true meaning” all you want. You would just be limiting yourself to one perspective that is skewed by not being able to discern important differences with this issue. It’s not an attempt to deceive. Like I said it’s just basic rules.
NPR: Senate Pulls ‘Nuclear’ Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation
In 2017 GOP Sen. Majority leader Mitch McConnell packed the U.S. Supreme Court by temporarily changing the Senate rules to confirm Gorsuch with a partisan 51-majority vote.
Fine by me.
Now it’s Democrats’ turn to pack the Supreme Court with justices.
Fine by me.
Elections have consequences.
Fine by me.
MCCONNELL USED THE NUCLEAR OPTION TO PASS TRUMP APPOINTEE NEIL GORSUCH TO THE SUPREME COURT!
There’s NO REASON why Democratic Party Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer cannot use the “Nuclear Option” to hold a 51-majority vote on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For The People Act.
Democrats are going to pack the court with Dem justices.
Fine by me.
MCCONNELL USED THE NUCLEAR OPTION TO PASS TRUMP APPOINTEE NEIL GORSUCH TO THE SUPREME COURT!
Hmmm. At the time Sen. McConnell used a constitutional rule procedure to not confirm the Garland nomination, there was no President Trump and there was no Gorsuch nomination. What Sen. McConnell did however was consistent with what Sen. Schumer believed was appropriate when Ginsburg passed. Neither of them were advocating “packing the court.” They were both advocating using available rules for filling a vacancy.
You are a liar. You are lying, period. NPR, CBSNEWS, ABCNEWS, FOXNEWS, CNN – ALL MEDIA reported Mitch McConnell changed the Senate rules to confirm Neil Gorsuch while Trump was President.
Buttnaked liar exposed here. You’re wrong – of course Trump nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
NEW YORK TIMES: “Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html
This is the last time I respond to your half-baked, kookoo for coacoa puffs comments.
You are a liar. You are lying, period. NPR, CBSNEWS, ABCNEWS, FOXNEWS, CNN – ALL MEDIA reported Mitch McConnell changed the Senate rules to confirm Neil Gorsuch while Trump was President.
Now let’s see who’s lying.
– Which President nominated Garland…Obama.
– When was Garland nominated…March 2016.
– When did McConnell decide the Senate would wait for the nomination to come from the President elected in November 2016…within hours after the passing of Scalia, in February 2016.
So no, McConnell did not know what President would be nominating the next associate justice. He only knew which President wasn’t going to get a nomination through that Senate.
What’s next, McConnell used the Delorean time machine to know who was going to be President and what nomination he/she would be making?
Olly, don’t you think this ron is another well known poster from this blog?
I did not lie about my ancient heritage in order to gain acceptance into the University of my choice. Liz Warren’s entire career path since she told the Admissions people at Harvard she was of Native American Heritage has been based upon a falsehood. If anyone deserves to be ‘Canceled’ in this world of Cancellation in which we now live in these United States, this woman should be at the front of the line for cancellation.
A lot of people believe they have Native American heritage. It’s as common as people believing they have some distant heritage from another far off country or race.
Heck, Trump believes he’s a genius because allegedly some of his own ancestors were too. Just like Warren claimed to have connection so did Trump and yet both are wrong.
When you are in the public eye and try to benefit from a protected status, anyone with two brain cells to rub together verifies before they make a claim. To not do so amounts to theft. No matter how many times you type Trump it does not change the deceit she engaged in. She wants to claim Indian heritage she should suffer the consequences. They used to have a way of dealing with pale skins who speak with forked tongue. They’d stake them out, coat them with honey, and left the ants deal with them.
Currentsitguy,
What makes you think it was intentional rather than something she long believed because her parents told her and never questioned it? Many people have done that. Why should she be the exception. Many people believed they were related to a certain region or people until their DNA test proved them wrong.
A lot of people assume they are Irish just because they have red hair. Red haired folks are not automatically Irish because they have red hair. The Scottish do too. Red hair was introduced by the Vikings to England according to historical records. So one can claim to have Irish roots because of red hair and still be wrong.
One of the most important functions of any court is to follow the laws as written in an attempt to create equality of application of those laws. A court does not have a function of re-writing laws that are already written to achieve a specific policy outcome. And this is the biggest objection to the Roe v Wade decision that was made about 50 years ago.
That was a case where a law was created by a court, rather than a (narrow) interpretation of a law that was passed by a legislature.
Over the previous century, we have witnessed many re-writings of the Constitution by the Supreme Court that The Bill of Rights has lost too much of its meaning. When legislation was passed by Congress that directly contradicted what was written in The Bill of Rights, it should have been vetoed by a President. If it found its way into law, it should have been repudiated at first opportunity by the Supreme Court. Instead, we were left with the thoughts similar to what John Roberts said in the Obamacare decision: “Congress has the right to pass laws.” He didn’t always read The Bill of Rights, where almost every Amendment starts with, ‘Congress shall pass no law… .”
EW is a nasty fool. Always on the wrong side of the economic issues that matter.
This just another example of the Democratic Party’s full slide into totalitarianism. An article earlier this week by the little “constitutional” totalitarian Lawrence Tribe proves this point. His main complaint is that the current Court has ruled against his favorite causes and therefore the Court needs to be packed and packed immediately. He is not concerned with the structure of the Court nor the basis on which it made its judgements. He only wants a Supreme Court to affirm every single Progressive policy he advocates. He would have fit very nicely in the judicial system of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Oh I forget; if he did, he would have wound up in a Siberian Gulag or Auschwitz . But to progressives like him, history does not matter,
“This just another example of the Democratic Party’s full slide into totalitarianism.”
Alan, I think Turley is learning that the Democrats of today, his party, should not be called the Democrat Party and should be named. The Angry and Spiteful Totalitarian Party.
S. Meyer, that can’t be true given what has been exposed in the last few days. It seems republicans have been the ones advocating for authoritarian rule and anti-Democratic ideals.
Republican congressmen suggesting ways and means to subvert a legal election thru an attempt at a coup. Text messages further proving they were planning on this for a while. Meadows text messages and thousands of documents he turned in are showing the extent which Trump and his Republican allies in congress planned to do. It’s already been shown Trump lied about fraud and the election being stolen. It’s only a matter of time before it all comes to light that Trump and some republicans attempted a coup on American soil.
It’s funny that Turley still hasn’t written a column on those significant events.
Republican congressmen suggesting ways and means to subvert a legal election thru an attempt at a coup. Text messages further proving they were planning on this for a while.
Oh, things are coming to light all right.
Oops, he did it again. After leaking fake Donald Trump, Jr. emails, fabricating the transcript of a 2019 phone call between former President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s president, and lying about his interactions with the so-called whistleblower behind House Democrats’ first impeachment of Trump, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is now running the same con against a fellow lawmaker. During a hearing Monday night on the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Adam Schiff claimed to have proof that a member of Congress texted former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to instruct former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
Not only did Schiff misrepresent the substance of the text message and its source, he even doctored original text messages, which were obtained and reviewed by The Federalist in their entirety.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/15/during-january-6-hearing-schiff-doctored-text-messages-between-mark-meadows-and-rep-jim-jordan/
Svelaz, add the word coup to your to do list of dictionary searches. There was no coup, but there was a lot of lying by Democrats.
Well it just shows how ignorant she is of public opinion.For example, Warren wants abortion on demand any time by anybody, paid by the taxpayer. The citizens overwhelmingly support restrictions, typically at around 15-20 weeks of gestation. Another perfect example is her ignorant support of DeFund Police, a theory that has proven to create more crime and now liberal lawless cities wanting to REFUND the police. Progressives are power hungry, following the leads of their idols like Mao, Castro, Chavez, Stalin) and unable to deal with the fact that the average American is far more intelligent and ethical than they are.
“Destroying the Court to Save it: Warren Calls For Packing the Supreme Court With a Liberal Majority”
This comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone that’s paid attention to Senator Warren’s rhetoric over the last few years. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) is a political hack* in every sense of the phrase and she’s an active part of a regressively totalitarian political hack pack. People like Sen. Warren and her ilk are free to their opinions no matter how ignorant and anti-American they are, but they should be stripped of all their political and social power because they are an enemy to the constitution, an enemy to Liberty, and therefore an enemy to We the People.
Using the word “progressive” to describe these 21st century Democratic Party extremists is an oxymoron; the ideology, policies and actions of “progressives” are actually regressive to the point of being culturally and socially destructive. These ignorant 21st century “progressives” and their army of intimidating social justice warrior “brown shirts” have literally become the totalitarian evil they have professed to be against for years.
*Political Hack: a morally bankrupt person that has actually chosen to be a political tool and a political attack dog. The intentions of a political hack are aligned with victory NOT personal conviction, ethics or morals. The purpose of a political hack is to disrupt the political opposition using any and all means necessary. The ends justifies the means is a core belief of a political hack.
Witherspoon,
“ Warren and her ilk are free to their opinions no matter how ignorant and anti-American they are, but they should be stripped of all their political and social power because they are an enemy to the constitution, an enemy to Liberty, and therefore an enemy to We the People.”
Republicans have indeed been practicing what Warren wants to do. They have been packing the lower courts for a while and they certainly did when they held off Garland’s nomination.
There’s nothing “un-American” about wanting to increase the size of the court. Even Turley supports increasing its size. What is disingenuous is Turley’s characterization that democrats want to pack the court only with liberal leaning justices. What if they do put more moderate justices instead of liberal ones? The effect is the same. To blunt the influence of a more conservative Supreme Court. Nothing about that is either un-American or unconstitutional. Turley knows that.
Warren, is allowed to change her views just as Turley has changed his over the years. But here he criticizes that change as somehow antithetical to her principles. Turley is just as guilty of the same.
Keep in mind that Turley too has been considered and proven to be a political hack with his more controversial opinions.
Svel-az, your comment is pure poppycock. Republicans have no more been ‘packing courts’ than Democrats have. You are obviously ignorant about what the phrase “court packing” means. It means to increase the size of the Supreme Court in hopes of creating a new SCOTUS majority that will rule the way that you and other Hard-Left loons want, notwithstanding what sensible judicial interpretation says to the contrary.
Warren D. Miller,
“ Svel-az, your comment is pure poppycock. Republicans have no more been ‘packing courts’ than Democrats have. You are obviously ignorant about what the phrase “court packing” means. It means to increase the size of the Supreme Court in hopes of creating a new SCOTUS majority that will rule the way that you and other Hard-Left loons want, notwithstanding what sensible judicial interpretation says to the contrary.”
Oh yes republicans have indeed been packing the lower courts. They rushed nominations and seated more conservative judges when they had majorities in both houses of congress. That’s a simple truth.
Court packing means to put in a majority of ideologically like minded justices in order to get the outcomes you want. Merely increasing the size of the court is not “court packing”. Turley himself has advocated for YEARS to increase the size of the court. What he objects to is court packing, meaning intentionally putting more justices in the majority leaning either liberal or conservative. What Turley isn’t admitting is that court packing is not illegal or unconstitutional. That’s why republicans have been doing that with the lower courts.
Name me a single court Republicans enlarged the size of to gain a majority.
Currentsitguy,
“ Name me a single court Republicans enlarged the size of to gain a majority.”
No court has been enlarged. However the majority of open positions in numerous federal courts including circuit courts where multiple judges preside have been filled by republicans with conservative judges. Thereby changing the opinions coming out of the courts to more conservatives views. That’s what packing courts is. Its not changing the physical size, it’s changing the ideological makeup of lower courts so rulings are more consistently in favor of conservative views.
Thereby changing the opinions coming out of the courts to more conservatives views. That’s what packing courts is.
According to the Left’s favorite dictionary, Merriam-Webster defines Court-Packing as : the act or practice of packing (see PACK entry 3 sense 1) a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court.
No doubt they haven’t gotten around to rewriting their definition to your new version…yet.
So to recap, Presidents will nominate judges for vacancies on the court, that typically align with their views. The Senate majority shall, through their constitutional powers, decide to confirm or reject a nomination.
I’d suggest you stop embarrassing yourself, but that ship sailed a very long time ago.
Blame Obama for not filling the seats he was entitled to fill. The Democrats obstructed everything having to do with the Trump administration. Only fools don’t recognize that.
“Oh yes republicans have indeed been packing the lower courts. “
Wrong again Svelaz. learn the definition of court packing. You use crazy definitions in many of your comments and we let it go by because we recognize your abilities are limited, but after being told so many times you are wrong , it’s time for you to learn what the words mean.
All of their comments are poppycock. They are here to sow discord, and that’s about it. I think most of us ignore Svelaz, Natacha, etc.
Republicans have indeed been practicing what Warren wants to do. They have been packing the lower courts for a while and they certainly did when they held off Garland’s nomination.
That is not court packing. Turley goes to some length here to lay out exactly why.
Following the constituion is not some ‘work around’.
If you are going to call a person a hack for past opinions, name the opinion. I have asked others to support the personal smear and have never gotten a response.
Pitch-perfect, Iowan2.
Iowan2,
“ That is not court packing. Turley goes to some length here to lay out exactly why.”
Turley’s merely being disingenuous with the nuances of what court packing is.
The term “court” applies to the entirety of the federal court system not just the body of the Supreme Court. It applies to district courts, appeals courts, circuit courts. Circuit courts have anywhere from six to nine judges. Republicans have been packing these courts with more conservative justices and it’s all legal and constitutional.
Democrats have just as much right to exercise that prerogative when they are in the majority and Turley knows it.
The “court” covers all of the federal court system.
Nominating lower court judges to open positions is no more “court-packing’ now than it was when Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama did it. Current “progressive” angst is grounded in Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s decision not to step down, giving Mr. Obama the opportunity to nominate another “progressive” to the Supreme Court.
Mistressadams,
“ Nominating lower court judges to open positions is no more “court-packing’ now than it was when Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama did it. ”
The distinction lies in the difference between nominating judges and confirming them. Clinton and Obama nominated a lot of judges to open positions, BUUUUUTTT, it was republicans who held the majority in both houses during their terms that blocked those conformations keeping those positions open for conservative judges when a Republican president gets elected to office. Republicans deliberately prolonged open positions by blocking or delaying nominations, essentially running out the clock, in order to increase the chances of putting a judge they want on the court. That’s packing the courts.
Turley is smart enough to know that, buy he is deliberately omitting that inconvenient fact.
Wrong again Svelaz. Learn the definition of court packing.
“There’s nothing “un-American” about wanting to increase the size of the court.”
If one wants to increase the court, only do so after all Presidents and representatives that voted or passed the change have undergone a new election challenge. That is fair.
Suddenly Democrats will not be so interested in the change. That demonstrates it is purely political. How about that Svelaz?
S. Meyer wrote, “If one wants to increase the court, only do so after all Presidents and representatives that voted or passed the change have undergone a new election challenge.”
That’s an interesting idea and I understand why you think that’s a good idea but there is no way to reasonably implement such a thing. Once something is voted into law, it is law and just because the ones that voted on it don’t get reelected doesn’t invalidate the law, that’s how the system works, period. In my opinion; if this kind of proposal could actually be done for this kind of change in the law then it could be applied to implementing all other laws and such a policy would create chaos in the government and render it basically non-functional.
Again; interesting idea but I don’t think it’s reasonable.
“Once something is voted into law, it is law and just because the ones that voted on it don’t get reelected doesn’t invalidate the law,”
Thank you for considering it, but I disagree with your premise.
Incorporated into the law would be the date of its enaction, somewhere within six years or less if desired. The idea is to prevent politics from drastically altering our basic institutions.
Witherspoon,
👍. I agree.
S. Meyer,
“ If one wants to increase the court, only do so after all Presidents and representatives that voted or passed the change have undergone a new election challenge. That is fair.”
Nothing in the law or the constitution says anything has to be fair. It was unfair that Garland’s nomination was deliberately held up for a year just let the next president choose. It was legal and constitutional. So why should democrats adhere to fairness when republicans didn’t? Would that be a fair question?
If democrats want to increase the size of the court and choose whether to pack it with more liberal justices they have just as much right to do so as republicans would have if they were the majority. The law is, those on the majority get to make the rules. If a majority of voters chose a majority of representatives and senators to congress they have every legal justification and constitutional authority to increase the size and choose the makeup of the court as they see fit.
“Nothing in the law or the constitution says anything has to be fair. “
That is true. When I talk about fairness, I am trying to prevent either party from packing the court. That destroys confidence in the court and the law and is destructive to the nation. Those that don’t care only want power for themselves.
Go back to the Bork nomination and see which party doesn’t adhere to statesmanship. Check out Harry Reid. Listen to what Ginsberg and Breyer said. All you have are empty words and repetitive phrases since you are not concerned with the nation. You don’t have critical thinking skills.
Create a to do list and place court packing on it so you learn what the words mean.
To my fellow commenters…
Don’t feed the Svelaz troll!!!
Svelaz takes positions based on talking points. It is good to expose that type of non-thinking person for what he is.
S. Meyer wrote, “It is good to expose that type of non-thinking person for what he is.”
You’re welcome to your opinion but remember this quote from Mark Twain, “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” This is what internet trolls try to do.
Steve, Mark Twain may have been right, but I am not dealing with someone who has experience or thinks. Svelaz is a non-entity who can only parrot talking points. He cannot deal with anything outside of those points. I think it essential to take those talking points and reveal what they are, points without substance.
Let others who read the leftist talking points recognize how empty they are.
S. Meyer, you take positions on talking points as well. In fact everyone does. It’s the basis for many of the “discussions” that pop up here. Including yours.
Svelaz, we all take positions that might be similar to talking points, but you have nothing more to say then the talking point. I previously sent out a bunch of those posts where you ran away after pretending to know something.
You lack critical thinking skills.
Witherspoon, I went over the previous heated discussion we had a few days ago and I will admit that I did not thoroughly read everything that I stated. I’m man enough to admit that I messed up in some my responses to your posts and I sincerely apologize. Certain areas of the discussion I still hold accurate however. But you were certainly right about not making some statements that I claimed you did. Again my apologies.
Svelaz wrote, “I went over the previous heated discussion we had a few days ago and I will admit that I did not thoroughly read everything that I stated. I’m man enough to admit that I messed up in some my responses to your posts and I sincerely apologize. Certain areas of the discussion I still hold accurate however. But you were certainly right about not making some statements that I claimed you did. Again my apologies.”
Thank you for taking that effort.
Apology accepted.
Warren should drink some of that firewater and forget about it.
I know now that BBB has been shelved and dems have claimed they will ‘aggressively pivot’ to rewriting voting laws, they will be pushing this and anything and everything else they can think of hard to get what they want. Leading up to the midterms and beyond, any pretense will have vanished from ALL of them. Non-dems are the enemy, period, trying to destroy our country. We are about to see absolutely unrestrained totalitarianism from the left, no ifs, ands, or buts, IMO.
Turley is a misogynist for attacking Warren seeking to stack the court.
I don’t hear Turley complaining of conservative white males’ goofyass, selfish, racist and misogynistic monkey business.
Elections have consequences and We The Democrats are going to stack this GOP-led court to High Heaven with Democratic Party justices.
Good riddance of this GOP majority of old conservative white males sitting on the Court, completely out of touch with the will of the majority of Americans who support progressive policies over Republican anti-social garbage.
STACK THE COURT NOW!
ronharold2021
And like clockwork, the Lefty pivots to sex discrimination (surprised that you didn’t claim that Turley is racist for attacking a Cherokee).
You people are both predictable and ugly.
We all know he’s nothing but a troll
That’s it, show your colors now so even the typically inattentive electorate will be thoroughly happy to squash you and your lot at the polls in November.
So if it’s true that the GOP is “completely out of touch with the will of the majority of Americans who support progressive policies”, you should be able to elect representatives that will pass laws that support the policies you’re wanting. And as long as they’re constitutional any Supreme Court, doing their job properly, will uphold those laws, even if they don’t align with their political views. That’s how is is supposed to work; not by having unelected judges make the laws!
I will never understand how progressives look past her abuse of a system designed to help disadvantaged. But I guess in party with Ted Kennedy killing, BJ Clinton raping and sexually harassing – claiming to be a minority is pretty minor.
She seems to be very hung up over the Court overruling Baker v. Nelson.
“To restore balance and integrity to a broken institution, Congress must expand the Supreme Court by four or more seats,” she wrote. “Some oppose the idea of court expansion. They have argued that expansion is ‘court-packing,’ that it would start a never-ending cycle of adding justices to the bench, and that it would undermine the court’s integrity.
“They are wrong. And their concerns do not reflect the gravity of the Republican hijacking of the Supreme Court.”
And she was a lawyer? Her argument is, “They are wrong”? Wow, that’s it? I’m convinced. Warren says there’s nothing to worry about. What an idiot.
Well, my guess is that they have 12 months to get all this done. Things may look real different in January 2023
And it’s obvious that the justices all know it.
Turley states,
“ What is most striking is Warren’s use of a clearly false premise: that the Republicans packed the Court first: “This Republican court-packing has undermined the legitimacy of every action the current court takes.” She is referring the Republicans refusing to vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland during the Obama Administration. Many of us criticized the lack of a Senate vote at the time. However, that is not court packing. The Senate has the constitutional authority to vote or not to vote on a nominee. It was perfectly constitutional.”
Turley as usual is being disingenuous with the facts. Republicans were indeed packing the court. The senate deliberately held off on voting whether to confirm garland. The intent was clear that republicans WANTED to pack the court. Just as they have been doing with the lower courts. Warren is correct in pointing out that republicans have been packing the lower courts by rushing confirmations during the time they had control of both bodies of congress.
If Democrats want to pack the court with more liberal justices they have every right to do so for the same reason republicans according to Turley were constitutionally allowed to hold off on voting to consider garland’s nomination. They held it off for a year. Turley’s protestations about “court packing” ring white hollow in the face of what even he would be forced to admit is constitutionally permissible for a Democratic congress and White House to increase the size of the court.
“Democratic congress and White House to increase the size of the court.”
Otherwise known as court packing.
How many SCJ’s have the republicans added in the last 50 years?
Jim22,
“ Democratic congress and White House to increase the size of the court.”
Otherwise known as court packing.”
Actually that is not accurate. Simply increasing the size of the court is not court packing. Turkey himself supports increasing the size of the court. He’s made it known multiple times. To say that increasing the size of the court means court packing then by your own definition Turley supports court packing.
Stop being so obviously naive. She has stated she wants to increase the court to make it not conservative. This is the very definition of court packing. So stop pretending to be stupid and own it.
Jim22,
She can state whatever she wants, but that doesn’t mean anything she says will be what actually happens. It’s not like she will be the only person deciding who will sit on the bench. What if more moderate justices are chosen? The reason for increasing the size of the court is to blunt the heavy lean to the right by the current makeup of the court.
Balancing that out by making it bigger is certainly constitutionally permissible and well within the ability of congress to do so.
Then my suggestion holds. Pass a bill increasing the size of the court, but do not permit an increase in size until all the elected officials involved face a challenge. That takes politics out of the equation.
That will not satisfy Svelaz because he is one of those parrots that regurgitate leftist talking points. He doesn’t think or have any ethical or moral restraints.
S. Meyer,
“ Then my suggestion holds. Pass a bill increasing the size of the court, but do not permit an increase in size until all the elected officials involved face a challenge. That takes politics out of the equation.
That will not satisfy Svelaz because he is one of those parrots that regurgitate leftist talking points. He doesn’t think or have any ethical or moral restraints.”
It didn’t satisfy Witherspoon either. He correctly pointed out how your suggestion was impractical and be more of a problem.
For example, your suggestion would require that an incoming president be forced to accept the nomination of another even if he opposes it. Would he be able to recind the nomination before the senate gets a chance to consider it?
Would a Republican president be forced to support a democratic nomination from the previous president?
S. Meyer, a lot of those talking points are also Turley’s own. Is he parroting as well?
” your suggestion would require that an incoming president be forced to accept the nomination of another even if he opposes it.”
Svelaz, Wrong again. An incoming President would have met my criteria. He would have his full powers. I am delaying the process so successive administrations don’t keep increasing the court to permit themselves a majority. I want all sides to have a fair shot.
“S. Meyer, a lot of those talking points are also Turley’s own. Is he parroting as well?”
Svelaz you parrot, Turley does not. That is why there is depth to Turley’s comments and yours are as shallow as can be.
IIRC, the Professor is on record for supporting an increase in the size of the Court, albeit not for pure partisan purposes. And the distinction between Warren and McConnell’s actions is that no authorizing legislation was required to hold off on Garland’s nomination.
And, again, it isn’t court-packing to nominate an individual to fill an open seat. It is completely within any Senate Majority Leader’s authority to decline to bring a nomination to a vote – just as it is for any Senator to ‘pink slip’ a nomination and prevent a nomination being considered. As I say, “progressive” angst is grounded in Associate Justice Ginsberg’s decision not to step down and give Mr. Obama the opportunity to nominate a sufficiently “progressive” candidate.
The Court was destroyed when McConnell blocked Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court. Trump the proceeded to appoint loyalists not jurists to do his bidding. Funny how all of that’s ok because Republicans did it!
And dems never do this. Didn’t the community organizer coin the phrase, “elections have consequences, now sit down and shut up”.
The senate gave Obama advice that Garland was not acceptable, as is their role
I haven’t been a huge fan of the senate, but man were they proven right about that. Garland is a complete empty suit hack. Unlike sotomayor who has proven that you can flip a coin two hundred times and guess the wrong outcome 195 times, garland is simply a puppet.
You mean jurists like Sotomayer and Kagan?
Justice Holmes wrote, “The Court was destroyed when McConnell blocked Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court.”
That’s complete and utter nonsense.
Nothing was “destroyed”, the Supreme Court of the United States still exists and it still functions as the third branch of the Government as originally designed. Just because arrogant totalitarian minded fools, like you, don’t necessarily like the current makeup of the court because you’d rather it lean your way instead of the way you oppose does not mean a dang thing in the great scheme of things. The Supreme Court of the United States is not destroyed or diminished in any way by the perceived makeup of the justices; however, intentionally trying to manipulate the court by intentionally packing the court with social justice activists justices, which is exactly what the political hack Sen. Warren is wanting to do, should be shot down by Congress. Packing the court as Warren proposes is destructive to the integrity of the court.
I think it’s hilariously hypocritical for the political left to be complaining about the perceived makeup of the court when they have dominated the makeup of the court for many years. In the hypocritical minds of the political left, it’s fine for the perceived leaning of the court to lean heavily towards the political left but not lean heavily towards the political right. The political eft has shown us over and over again that in the irrational minds of the political left the left is right and right is wrong, it sounds a bit Orwellian.
Justice Holmes wrote, “Trump the proceeded to appoint loyalists not jurists to do his bidding.”
Interesting opinion even though it’s a verifiably false claim. This is tarring the Justices in the court of public opinion based on politics NOT based on actual fact. If Trump appointed “loyalists not jurists to do his bidding” then why have those supposed “loyalists” not ruled with Trump and/or Conservatives in every case? Justices are supposed to rule based on their understanding and interpretation of the Constitution and the law, they’re not supposed to rule based on politics and I think the Trump appointed Justices have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not Trump loyalists as you and other irrational propagandists tar them. Your argument is ridiculously false.
The difference between the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump and what Sen. Warren wants to do is Trump tried to appoint Justices that will uphold the rule of law and the Constitution and Sen. Warren wants to literally appoint activist Justices (that’s exactly what packing the court means), social justice warriors, that will not rule based on their understanding and interpretation of the Constitution and the law instead they will literally rule based on popular opinion and politics and that is NOT what Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do. What Sen. Warren is trying to do is what will actually destroy the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Justice Holmes wrote, “Funny how all of that’s ok because Republicans did it!”
The implications of that statement is an implied tit-for-tat rationalization; you seem to falsely think that Trump appointed “loyalists not jurists to do his bidding” so people like Warren and her ilk should do the same. Two perceived wrongs don’t make a right.
The real Justice Holmes must be spinning in his grave. Name one President who didn’t nominate justices to “shape” the judiciary. Newsflash: it’s the President’s Constitutional prerogative.
“The Court was destroyed when McConnell blocked Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court.”
Seriously?! You need to recheck your history. That blocking, by both parties, started in the 19th century. If that’s too far back, try Bork.
Turley irony-deficiency alert: ” Academics often evolve in their views of constitutional or statutory issues. However, Warren never made the transition from a corporate defender to an anti-corporate activist in her academic writings. It came largely after her entry into politics.”
And legal non-sequitiur alert/ Fox news legal reasoning alert. : Turley says Garland-Gorsuch move was not court packing because .. it was constitutional! But the argument against court-packing is not that it’s unconstitutional.
No rules were changed for Gorsuch. No rules were changed for Garland. How will warren add 4 new members without changing the rules?
aha – a non sequitur to justify a non sequitur. How is changing the rules unconstitutional?
Not illegal, but it is the BRIGHT line dividing court packing from court appointments
Then I take it that you agree that Turley is a misinform-er
You need literacy lessons
Robert,
👍 excellent point.
Sen. Warren exemplifies the lack of morality in Washington.
If the Dems follow her call for moral corruption, then they are beneath contempt.
Like to see if our resident Lefties are so political that they will support her call.
Guys address the issue.
No Trump or Fox whataboutism, just state your position.
Monumentcolorado,
“ Like to see if our resident Lefties are so political that they will support her call.”
I support her call to increase the size of the court. The political leanings of the justices are not guaranteed to be as liberal as Turley or others claim. Even more moderate justices would be preferable to strictly liberal leaning justices. Turley himself supports increasing the size of the Supreme Court.
Balancing the court’s ideological makeup is more practical because it removes the appearance of political bias. Currently the court has already tainted by politics by what Mitch McConnell did. The installation of conservatives judges was intentional. The question still is, if republicans can legally justify putting ideologically conservative justices on the bench. Why shouldn’t democrats?
(As pointed out, both liberal Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were opposed to this….) How do you respond to that?
Svalaz can’t. It isn’t in his playbook yet.
Well, it seems that most of the SCOTUS is compromised anyway, as they continue to vote radical left on just about everything.