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.
The GOP’s court-stacking
The attempt to label what the GOP has done “court-packing” is too cute by half.
Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court in the 1930s, court-packing has been understood to mean statutorily adding seats on the bench so you can tip its balance in one fell swoop;
it has never meant more broadly doing controversial and/or brazen things to game the process and get more judges for your side.
Republicans have unquestionably done the latter.
At numerous points in recent years, Republicans have floated or done things with little or no precedent to help their party install a higher percentage of sitting judges.
So while it may not be “court-packing,” you could sure call it something else. I submit that a more apt term would be “court-stacking.”
Just last week, Fox News host Sean Hannity repeated a bogus Trump talking point that Obama somehow had inexplicably left all these judicial seats empty because of his incompetence.
“I was shocked that former president Obama left so many vacancies and didn’t try to fill those positions,” Hannity said, somehow with a straight face.
But McConnell quickly interjected.
“I’ll tell you why,” McConnell said with a wry laugh: “I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration.”
Nobody can dispute that. And it all resulted in a rather successful GOP attempt at court-stacking — just not court-packing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/12/no-gop-didnt-engage-court-packing-it-did-plenty-court-stacking/
Hogwash, ronharold2021. In his position as Senate Majority Leader in 2016, McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider POTUS Hussein Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to succeed the late Justice Scalia because a national election would be held a few months later, and McConnell thought that whoever was elected POTUS in that election should nominate Justice Scalia’s successor.
You want to play Monopoly, you play by the rules:
Aid and comfort is given to the invading aliens.
Elon Musk’s Tweet must have knocked the wind out of Elizabeth Warren. She accused him of being a freeloader. He responded that he pays more taxes than any US citizen in history.
It’s a pity that an academic does not understand who pays into the system, and who pays nothing but withdraws from the system.
George, you can keep your precious bodily fluids.
The Golden Rule still works as a measure of right and wrong.
If Elizabeth Warren is correct, that it is just to expand the Supreme Court in order to pack it with far Left ideologies, then conversely, it is just for Republicans to expand the Supreme Court in order to pack it with far right ideologies. Note that “far right ideologies” would not be Originalists, but rather their purpose would be to further a political agenda, and treat the Constitution as malleable.
If it’s not OK for the other side to do it, then it’s not OK for you to do it.
Karen: as usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about and you are once again parrotting what you heard on Fox. You don’t know what an “originalist” is and neither do the pundits you rely on for your information, but certainly, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett don’t meet this description. Their presence on the court is wrong for many reasons, mostly because they were nominated by someone who cheated to get into office and who lost the popular vote. McConnell denied Obama’s nominee a seat due to the proximity of the presidential election (over a year away) , and then, being the massive hypocrite he is, refused to apply the same logic when Republicans had a chance to shove radical right-winger Barrett onto the Court (with the election a few days away). Dozens clamored to be heard about Kavanaugh, but were denied the chance to testify due to Republicans refusing to give Americans a voice in the process. The radical right makeup of the SCOTUS does not reflect the wishes or values of the majority of Americans. SCOTUS appointments are for a lifetime, which only exacerbates the wrongness of Trump’s cheating to get into office and McConnell’s overt hypocrisy and partisan politics.
What if the law provided that a judicial appointment was to be made in odd years, regardless of death or resignation from the Court? It would mean that in each Presidential term, there would be two – no more no less – appointments.
If the Senate declined to approve the President’s first three nominees, the President could provide a list of ten sitting Federal judges, and the Senate would be obligated to confirm one. If the Senate failed to confirm within a specified time, the Senate would be deemed to have consented to the first judge on the President’s list.
If this process had been utilized beginning in 2001, for example, the Court would currently have thirteen members, (eleven 21st Century picks plus two holdovers from the Nineties) one of whom would be a Biden pick, with another pick to be made in 2023.
The political temperature should be lowered because there would be additions to the Court on a fixed schedule, and the Senate would have somewhat less of an ability to stonewall nominations.
Justices would not be under pressure from politicians to resign or remain, since individual decisions regarding resignations do not trigger a vacant seat.
Odds are that such a law would expand membership over time but not in a way that gave either party a chance to pack the Court with a flurry of one-party nominees..
The interesting thing about everything that’s happening in our country and our government is that the people in charge seem certain that there will never be consequences for their actions. They intend to push through HR1 and thereby achieve their goal of never ceding power back to the right. They therefore believe that no matter how egregious the abuse, the fox will continue to guard the henhouse in perpetuam. The problem with this is that never is a mighty long time. They are counting on their base to support them but their traditional base is shaking in their Crocs right now. Traditional liberals became liberals to prevent what the current pseudoliberals are doing. They are watching every single one of their dearest principles shredded by their own people. Unfortunately a big part of being a Democrat is the cool factor. The left is not the side of rugged individualism. Therefore it is very hard for traditional liberals to come out against the madness. It’s all very sad.
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.
The court has already been packed by Moscow Mitch and others with a crackpot majority most if not all who lied in their confirmation hearings – all Warren is asking for is the court to be unpacked – a few powerful groups put the crackpot majority in place to get with the court what they can’t do in the legislature – and as always JT sides with the crackpot power players – a waste of what was probably a good legal education
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.
Ron:
That’s not what “court packing” means. It’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion if the most basic term gets warped to suit political goals.
Court packing means increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to fill them. It requires increasing the SCOTUS to more than 9.
Appointing a justice to an existing vacancy is not “court packing.” The 51% precedent was set by Democrats in appointing judges. Turley did an in-depth analysis at the time of Obama’s term on the Senate’s legal ability to vote, or not even vote, on a nomination. One should note that there have been myriad occasions in which Democrats refused to even consider a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court.
You can’t change the definition of court packing in order to pretend that both sides are doing it. No. Both sides are not expanding the Supreme Court to more than 9 seats in order to appoint more justices.
False Logic.
Apparently you’re very wrong: McConnell on Court-Packing: “Responsible People Across the Political Spectrum Have a Duty to Denounce This”
https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/mcconnell-on-court-packing-responsible-people-across-the-political-spectrum-have-a-duty-to-denounce-this
TIME: “How Republicans Have Packed the Courts for Years”
https://time.com/6074707/republicans-courts-congress-mcconnell/
While Republicans lately have been attacking Democrats for plotting to “pack” the federal courts with like-minded judges, their party has been doing it for years.
Through bare-knuckle tactics in the Senate, an animated base of voters and an institutionalized and well-funded pipeline for judges, Republicans have stocked the federal bench at all levels with conservatives who share the right’s support for whacking at the wall between church and state and at the powers of federal regulatory agencies, banning abortion and expanding gun rights.
Republicans’ ruthless success in the judicial wars is most evident on the highest court in the land. As the Supreme Court with its new 6-3 conservative majority ends its term this month, the question for court-watchers isn’t whether it will rule in a conservative way. It’s how far-reaching will those rulings be.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has made confirming conservative judges his singular focus. In 2018 he described his goal at a gala of the Federalist Society, the four-decades-old legal network that’s become the pipeline for Republican judicial appointees: It’s “to do everything we can, for as long as we can, to transform the federal judiciary, because everything else we do is transitory.”
Ron, when did Republicans increase the Supreme Court to more than 9 seats?
Because unless they increased the actual number of justices on SCOTUS, to more than 9, then they have never packed the Court.
Appointed, yes, but that’s not the definition of “court packing.”
That’s why people try to pretend they can change the meaning of Court Packing, in order to pretend that both sides are doing it.
No, they aren’t.
Karen+S: The phrase ‘packing the courts’ has nothing to do with the size of the Supreme Court. The phrase refers to one political party being able to get more federal judges confirmed who generally reflect that party’s political views and will, supporters hope, hand down decisions accordingly. As Republicans found out the hard way with former Justice David Suitor, who was nominated by Bush 41 in the fall of 1990, those hopes are not always realized.
Warren Miller, CPA, CFA, ASA,
packing the court: Definition
” 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” __Merriam Webster © 2021 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
We agree 100%!!
Warren:
It is impossible to have an informed discussion if the proper definitions of terms is not adhered to. There cannot be a conversation if we’re not all using the same vocabulary.
Turley has defined court packing many times, as expanding the Court rapidly in order to have more appointments.
He did it again here:
“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.”
While Turley has been in favor of expanding the Court, he has said it should be done very gradually, so as to avoid giving undo advantage to any one President or political party.
Democrats have opposed nominations, or refused to even vote on them, many times.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/court-packing
“Definition of court-packing
: 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”
Democrats have decided to change the definition of court-packing in order to claim that Republicans did it, so if Democrats expanded the Court, it’s just returning the favor. This is a sudden and total redefining of the term.
Democrats absolutely have blocked nominees, including refusing to vote. They have used every tool at their disposal to vote for or block nominees when it politically suited them. That’s not court-packing.
Know your terms, and our history.
https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/02/28/dems-also-blocked-supreme-court-nominees/81077924/
Pitch-perfect. We agree 100%.
It was Mitch McConnell and Republicans who first used a 51-majority vote to confirm a GOP Supreme Court justice.
WASH POST: “Want to know all about ‘court-packing’? Ask Mitch McConnell.”
There are certain words and phrases in the English language that drive me bonkers. “Slacks” is one. “At the end of the day” is another. Thanks to Republicans, there’s a new entrant: “court-packing.” The phrase has come into vogue after a threat from some congressional Democrats to add seats to the Supreme Court if Senate Republicans rammed through a third Supreme Court nomination by President Trump with less than 30 days until the presidential election.
In 2012, my colleague Greg Sargent wrote about a telling on-the-record anecdote from Biden in the book “The New New Deal” by Michael Grunwald about how Republicans planned to oppose President Barack Obama when he took office in 2009. “Biden says that during the transition, a number of Republican Senators privately confided to him that [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell [R-Ky.] had given them the directive that there was to be no cooperation with the new administration,” Sargent wrote, “because he had decided that ‘we can’t let you succeed.’”
Republicans had it in for Obama before Day 1.
In other words, Republicans would obstruct everything, from legislation to Cabinet and judicial appointments. Back then, nominations could be tripped up by a filibuster that required 60 votes to advance to a final vote. Things changed after Obama’s reelection in 2012, when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and his fellow Democrats used the “nuclear option” by changing the rules to confirm federal judges (but not Supreme Court justices) by a simple majority.
“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” responded McConnell. And how right he was. After the GOP won the Senate majority in 2014, McConnell exercised all power to thwart Obama’s judicial nominees in the last two years of his presidency. According to a 2018 report from Brookings, such confirmations were “fewer compared to [George W. Bush’s,] Clinton’s and Reagan’s.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/13/want-know-all-about-court-packing-ask-mitch-mcconnell/
Yep, you’re right. It was Democrats who invoked the nuclear option to break the filibuster on nominees. McConnell just applied their own tactics and logic to SCOTUS.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-nuclear-filibuster-rules/story?id=20964700
Neither Democrats nor Republicans should just go along with the other side when what they are proposing is diametrically opposed to everything they stand for. There can be negotiation or compromise, but simply going along with something that will outrage their own voters…no.
“MCCONNELL USED THE NUCLEAR OPTION”
That nuclear option was a gift from Harry Reid. But I guess you felt like ignoring that inconvenient fact.
Turley, I don’t even bother to read all the way through the indoctrination for the disciples that you started writing when you went on the Fox payroll, but you are, once again, showing your true colors as a paid partisan. You say that the SCOTUS is supposed to rule against widely-held public opinion, but you don’t qualify what you say to comport with the actual role of the SCOTUS. Yes, the Court is supposed to rule against widely-held public opinion on things are run counter to rights guaranteed by the Constitution, like the right of privacy, the right to vote and other things that, in the past, widely-held public opinion would allow, including slavery. The judges aren’t there to practice their religion–I’m talking to you, Coney-Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh–or to force their personal opinions on the American people, especially when their views are so out of step with those of most Americans.
You complain of court-packing, but that’s just what we have now: an ultra-right wing bent to the SCOTUS due to an election cheater who lost the popular vote and who appointed judges based primarily on their opposition to Roe v. Wade after vetting from the extremist Federalist Society. You complain about Senator Warren wanting the SCOTUS to be more in line with her opinions, but we now have 3 radical right-wing idealogues who are on a mission to curtail Roe v. Wade based on their own opinions, ignoring the fact that they pledged, during their confirmation interviews, to respect stare decisis and the Constitution. Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and the SCOTUS is poised to trash it along with womens’ rights. Who knows what other rights they’ll trash along the way.
Why shouldn’t views and political bents of the SCOTUS reflect the values and political beliefs of the majority of Americans? Why? Because the Republicans got away with their version of court-packing: McConnell denied Merrick Garland a seat on the SCOTUS due allegedly to the proximity of the election, but when the tables were turned, he allowed Coney-Barrett’s nomination to go through. The American people were denied a full vetting of Kavanaugh because the Republicans cut off testimony from dozens of people who clamored to be heard. So, these two got shoved down the throats of American voters, but adding judges would, according to Turley, be a wrong thing, because defending the SCOTUS is on his list of Fox assignments. Of course, attacking Senator Warren is also on the list of Turley assignments from the Hate Network.
Hey, Turley: why don’t you write about Ingraham, Kilmeade and Hannity’s texts to Mark Meadows and their laughable arguments about their right of privacy being violated, despite the fact that they thought it was OK for Julian Assange, Strock and others’ emails being published?
Natacha
Do you even know how to be succinct?
Garland would not have been confirmed in any event – he didn’t have enough votes in the Senate.
Natacha, nobody bothers to read all the way through your overly long diatribes either, unless they have masochistic tendencies. Your tone is rude if not outright abusive. To address Professor Turley by his surname is a liberty that no one here should take. You can disagree in a respectful manner or, judging by the length of your comments, perhaps you should get your own blog.
Debbie: if you pay any attention at all, you’ll notice that the only people who call Turley “Professor” are those who agree with what he posts. When you sell your credentials to a media outlet that trades in lies and use your alleged “expertise” to sell their narrative, you don’t deserve any honorific titles. I don’t respect the deceitful spin Turley oftentimes puts on things he writes, his ignoring of major political stories like the hypocrisy of Fox News personalities and their ties to Trump and his unfair and unreasonable attacks on Democrats, especially women of color, while ignoring people like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert and other Republicans like Jim Jordan and others who are traitors. I put in lots of context and details. Too bad if it’s more than you can handle.
Deborah addressed your comments in a very respectful way. The good professor is referred to by his title because he has earned the respect of multiple sides to an issue, not from those who constantly seethe venom instead of substantive argument
I didn’t write anything venomous–Debbie called my posts “diatribe”, and claims that people who read them must be machochists, which is insulting. Turley uses his credentials to push a narrative from a media outlet that constantly lies, attacks Democrats, especially women of color, and which defends the most-incompetent person ever to cheat his way into the presidency. He tries to breathe credibility into the fake “Hunter Biden scandal” and takes his marching orders from Fox News, which has a pro-Trump/Republican agenda, which he tries to defend. True, I have lost respect for him. He doesn’t act like a “professor” at all when he engages in intellectual dishonesty.
The Constitution isn’t the be-all end-all, it is not perfect, and there could be something better. We should look into it. Questioning it does not mean someone is a communist. That’s jumping to a false conclusion. On the contrary, constitutionally eliminating communistic influences from government and society would make it better.
You are a direct enemy of the United States of America.
You have transcended treason and descended completely into mortal enemy status, comrade.
The Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom.
The communism you so obviously adore is enslavement under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” proposed by Karl Marx.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” said Karl.
Anyone who would ask your question wants comprehensive womb-to-tomb care from the government, as if that’s possible.
The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.
Americans were people who were anxious to actively engage in “the pursuit of happiness,” an enterprise or a career.
Let me guess, you’re an incapable, unambitious, dependent parasite, or trust fund baby, who has never had an original thought – did I get it right?
That is why amendments to the Constitution can be made. Those that wish to bypass the Constitution refuse to use the Constitutional amendment process.
“It’s the [Constitution], stupid.”
– James Carville
_____________
There can ever only be one truth.
There can ever only be one law.
There can ever only be one judge.
___________________________
Rep. Warren intends to subvert and nullify the Constitution by “packing,” politicizing and corrupting the Supreme Court, which is “comforting” to America’s enemies and, therefore, treason.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
While a Chief Justice requires caseload assistants, adding judges imposes corruption through politicization.
Only the executive and legislative branches may be political, elected and installed by a vote of the people.
Anti-constitutional elected officials endeavor to illicitly thwart, corrupt and modify the Constitution by politicizing the Supreme Court in order to impose an unconstitutional agenda.
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.” *
Taxation for anything other than “…general Welfare…,” or ALL well proceed as infrastructure, is unconstitutional – Regulation of anything other than money, commerce and land and naval Forces is unconstitutional – Laws which “claim and exercise” dominion over any aspect of private property are unconstitutional – The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
In the late Middle Ages, when the authority of the Sovereign, the British Crown, was challenged by a Subject, the Subject was Drawn and Quartered for treason.
Any elected official who challenges or fails to support the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, the U.S. Sovereign, must be impeached and convicted for subversion which is, ultimately, treason.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but 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
Brevity is the soul of wit.
The Constitution is the “soul” of America.
T: “Brevity is the soul of wit.”
That explains Natacha’s posts.
Correct me if I am wrong (don’t have time to look it up)– but it seems to me that McConnell stepped up because Democrat senators were not rejecting Gorsuch for his credentials, but rather, as a vindictive, political move.
Right on.
Right on, George (I meant to say).
The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices.
Congress does.
Congress may also impeach Justices who clearly controvert and subvert the Constitution, committing crimes of high office and violating their sworn oaths.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
There is a difference in increasing the number of justices and court packing. Democrats don’t understand what the words mean.
There should be penalties for people who predict that they will win when they actually lose. It’s too easy to do, to be so false.
That’s advertising.
That’s politics.
Lies are expected to be issued by unethical and dishonest politicians whom voters reject, presumably.
Lies and falsehood are not supposed to exist in the realm of jurisprudence.
The judicial branch is intended to be and is, by definition, the epitome of ethical, honest, fair, objective and dispassionate – or not.
How do I benefit from the Constitution? If I could benefit better from something else, would that something else be better than the Constitution?
The Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom.
The communism you so obviously adore is enslavement under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” proposed by Karl Marx.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” said Karl.
Anyone who would ask your question wants comprehensive womb-to-tomb care from the government, as if that’s possible.
The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.
Americans were people who were anxious to actively engage in “the pursuit of happiness,” an enterprise or a career.
Let me guess, you’re an incapable, unambitious, dependent parasite, or trust fund baby, who has never had an original thought – did I get it right?
Just so some of our slower witted friends on this blog will understand. Replacing Supreme Court justices to bring the total back to nine is not the same of expanding the court to some arbitrary number not yet disclosed by these posters or Senator Warren. Please tell us what number you would have it be and explain your rationale as to why it should be such a number. Expand the court to what and why? Ranting without stating the ultimate solution is simply just ranting. Of course ranting may be the purpose in the first place.
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.
We have two peoples opinion to consider when addressing the value of adding members to the Supreme Court. Warren’s opinion or Ginsberg’s opinion. You should decide which opinion on the subject deserves more respect.
If this doesn’t tell you where the true authoritarian threat lies, you haven’t been paying attention.
This is the true attack on our republic (not democracy) not some dullard in a Chewbacca shaman suit.
That’s Warren still trying to be relevant.
The good professor has done an excellent job pointing out the hypocrisies of the Democratic Party. He has done so without insult, name-calling, far-fetched insinuation, false rhetoric, or input from either Trump or FOX News. (Jeffsilbermann and Svalez, please take note.)