Chief Justice John Roberts used his year-end report on New Year’s Eve to denounce the threats being made against the Court and its members by Democratic politicians and groups, including threats to pack the Court to force an immediate liberal majority. Roberts referred to such threats as efforts to exercise “inappropriate political influence” on the Court in contravention of our constitutional values and traditions.
We have been discussing the ramped up threats from Democratic leaders that the Court will either vote with the liberal justices on key issues or face “consequences,” including court packing. Recently, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), a former law professor, became the latest to voice such reckless views.
What Democratic members are demanding is raw court packing to add four members to the Court to give liberals an instant majority — a movement denounced by figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.
Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority. This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., recently issued a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or face a “revolution.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chip away at Roe v Wade,” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
For her part, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioned the whole institution’s value if it is not going to vote consistently with her views and those of the Democratic Party: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” Warren seems to be channeling more AOC than FDR. Roosevelt at least tried to hide his reckless desire to pack the Court by pushing an age-based rule. It was uniquely stupid. The bill would have allowed Roosevelt to add up to six justices for every member who is over 70 years old. Warren, like AOC, wants the Democratic base to know that she is pushing a pure, outcome-changing court packing scheme without even the pretense of a neutral rule.
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.
Now Roberts appears to have responded. His report is striking in its measured and deliberative tone in comparison to the often reckless rhetoric of these politicians. He waited to address the year in review for his court and the 107 district and appeals courts across the country. However, he included the following lines that are clearly directed toward Congress and extreme Democratic groups like Demand Justice:
“Decisional independence is essential to due process, promoting impartial decision-making, free from political or other extraneous influence. The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”
The criticism comes after new polling shows that Roberts is the most popular government official in the country, a fact that led some on the left to express almost apocalyptic alarm.
He is not the only justice who is speaking out to blunt the attacks on the Court. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer chaffed at the claim that this is a “conservative” court and noted “The chief justice frequently speaks on this subject as well and says, no, no: we don’t look at our rulings from the point of view of our personal ideology.”
Justice Thomas criticized those who seem intent on diminishing the authority or respect for the Court: “the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference…They think you become like a politician. That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently told an audience that “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”
However, as discussed in my Hill column, the attacks are likely to increase in this key election year with so many major decisions ticking away on the Court docket. The type of demagoguery denounced by Chief Justice Roberts is now going mainstream with our leaders, the media, and various advocacy groups. Yet, Democratic strategists are finding that selling court packing and attacking justices is not resonating outside of the same 30 percent of voters on the left. Instead, many view what is “dire for democracy” is the effort to destroy one of the core institutions in our constitutional system.
The current Supreme Court is to small for the size of the population and the number of circuits. There are responsible plansto expand the court. Do one.
Not everything by a long shot needs to go to the Supreme Court. The Courts of Appeal handle the bulk of appeals.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently told an audience that “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”
I’m still not convinced. Just the opposite.
Could that be because she pronounced that while at a McConnell dedication? I mean how completely oblivious could one person possibly be? Maybe shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court…?
Years ago Jonathan Turley proposed a plan to enlarge – not pack – the court in a non-partisan way. Both parties would appoint justices. So not all reforms would result in “packing” the court.
When Obama was denied about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick, that was the textbook definition of partisan court-packing. Obama’s picks had integrity and experience, rejected for purely political reasons. Non-partisan reform is not the same as packing the court.
“Non-partisan reform is not the same as packing the court.”
True, but that would mean passing a bill to enlarge the courts in the future when no party could presume to benefit. Increasing the size of the SC makes the SC worse, but at least that way would be non-political.
You ignore the constitution. The President does not get to appoint judges. The President only has the power to nominate judges. Only the Senate has the power to install them. Advise and Consent. Obama just ignored the Advise part…at his own detriment.
And Sotameyer is a moderate in your world.
The “constitutional system” benefits both parties and all Americans. From gun rights to women’s rights to LGBT rights to African-American rights – those rights are only made permanent by the constitutional rights in courtrooms NOT either political party.
On constitutional rights, political parties (democratic part) almost always FOLLOW the court cases (constitutional part). The constitutional system – interpreted by the Judicial Branch courts – essentially set the constitutional “out-of-bounds” that Congress, presidents, governors and state legislatures must follow.
The “Marbury v. Madison” ruling in 1803, requires Congress, presidents and federal officials to operate within these out-bounds lines. The “Fletcher v. Peck” ruling in 1810 requires state and local governments to follow the Judicial Branch’s rulings on defining constitutionality. Congress and state legislatures then pass statutes, law and ordinances that must operate within these lines.
When government officials violate these rulings, like Jim Crow era laws or laws discriminating against LGBT-Americans or gun owners (ie: Heller ruling), those officials can be taken to court simply for exceeding the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional “out-of-bounds” and those officials will lose.
For example: a local court clerk refusing to perform a same-sex or interracial marriage is breaking the law and being disloyal to their oath of office. Or a local government penalizing citizens for owning a gun that violates the Heller ruling. This constitutional system benefits all Americans.
AZ,
So…using your logic….or construct….if the Court Clerk refuses to perform a same sex or inter-racial marriage is un-Constitutional and thus a violation of the Clerks Oath of Office…..is Bidens refusal to secure the Southern Border an un-Constitutional act which violates his Oath of Office?
If so…surely that is an Impeachable Offense is it not?
Or perhaps….continuing the Eviction Moratorium after being informed that Policy was un-Constitutional….would that also be an Impeachable Offense since he knowingly and with malice aforethought failed to act in a manner required by his Oath of Office?
I am thinking the Democrats shall rue the day they conjured up two Impeachments of Donald Trump…..should the Republicans win majorities in both Houses of Congress in 2022.
re: RC
To your comment, if Biden were violating anyone’s constitutional rights, as interpreted by U.S. Supreme Court rulings, yes I’d agree with you.
Not sure your examples above meet that constitutional standard, but conservatives do like the “Heller” court ruling that protects gun owners and that standard would apply to the 2nd Amendment and 9th Amendment as well. So the court’s “judicial review” authority benefits both parties and all Americans both conservative and progressive.
There’s a great article titled “What Progressives get wrong about judicial review” by Damon Root of Reason Magazine 2022 that voters of all parties should read. Excellent piece of writing.
It’s interesting that Turley takes the words of Robert’s to the threat against the court to heart, when Turley could care less that some readers of his blog have such distain and outright hostility to the rule of law. To them, January 6th never happened, the Trump administration was the clearest example of law and order of all time, and no one was found or plead guilty to anything. Those who deny reality are the threats to the court and the nation. Was Roberts worried about the rally on January 6th that was supposed to happen in front of the SCOTUS, you bet he was.
“…no one is found or plead guilty to anything.” If you’re referring to the riot/attack on the Capitol, hundreds of people have been arrested, many detained without bail. These people are still in jail and have not yet gone to trial. To find someone guilty, the accused has the right to due process. The guy with the fur hat and horns (I think he was called some kind of Shaman) was recently convicted for whatever he was charged with or plea bargained. These folks did some very stupid things, including the commission of crimes. They have been investigated and are being prosecuted.
If you’re referring to something else, I don’t know what that is. What I do know is that I have only seen claims that the events of that day weren’t noteworthy is online.
Fishwings, you are ignorant of almost everything.
“law enforcement officers from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and U.S. Capitol Police led a brutal assault against Trump supporters trapped inside that tunnel during the Capitol protest.”
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/26/surveillance-video-show-d-c-police-beating-women-on-january-6/
https://twitter.com/DefNotDarth/status/1474846843800633345
It’s pretty interesting that no one suggested packing the high court when the left ran rough shod over our Constitution the forty odd years they had control.
The suggestion of bipartisan confirmation rules for Supreme Court nominations would be appropriate as well. The insults and name calling in response to my my comments and proposal are disappointing.
when the left pick an extremist on abortion including being a past presided of planned parenthood, the right crossed over and voted to confirm that judge. When a judge had said in the past that Hispanic women could make better filings than white men…..again conservatives cruised over and voted for her. You know if a white man said that a white male could make better filings than a Hispanic female…. That judge would be REJECTED…..
The democrats are no longer going to play bipartisan during confirmations. They have massively attacked EVERY SC judge nominated by a Republican. At least as far back as Robert Bork.
You didn’t hear a peep out of the democrats when democrats stormed the capital trying to break in to the Senate during the confirmation of a “conservative” judge.
So yes we should have bipartisanship. It has been the left literally blocked it.
A legislative proposal by Democrats to add two justices to the Supreme Court would be an appropriate and proportional response to what the Senate Republicans did with respect to the Garland and Barrett nominations.
Wrong and ignorant opinion, which comes from your Left Wing indoctrination and Brainwashing. Its also a Fallacious Opinion. A true “appropriate and proportional response” to what you PERCEIVE was done, would be to reform the Senate Confirmation process. Set more clear bi-partisan rules and deadlines if you are unhappy with how that process has occurred. However, packing the court in your retribution is no only foolish and stupid, its also one more step on the road to the destruction of America so that you people (Communists) can “build back better” (666). Not happening. Constitutional Americans will not allow you to do this. You will not win.
Agree. Thanks.
Agree, thanks.
We as a nation are extremely lucky that pos Garland wasn’t nominated since his marxist qualities are so noticeable at his AG position. You probably like what Garland has done though since you sound like a marxist yourself. I pray for you but I do not feel sorry for you. You will be one of the first ones they kill after they take full control. You are just a sheep heading right for slaughter.
legislative proposal by Democrats to add two justices to the Supreme Court would be an appropriate
you say the quit part out loud.
The reason Biden convened a committee to expand the court was a game of payback? But that is exactly how Democrats govern. Lies about the true motives of their agenda. But the only true motive is amass as much power as possible. Ignoring the needs of the people entirely.
Climate change
Voting legislation
BBB? what a joke. Its the next huge socialist hijacking of the nation. The New Deal, Great Society, Obama care. Now BBB. Leftist trying to outdo each other, spending others peoples money.
Perhaps we just have different views on the wisdom of certain Federal programs but in my opinion Social Security, Medicare, ACA, and BBB were passed (or proposed) to address the needs of the people not ignore them.
were passed (or proposed) to address the needs of the people not ignore them.
If only the constitution enumerated the federal government the power to “meet the needs of the people”
Social security is nothing but a tax. That’s it. Talk to a financial planner. ask them how much you would have if 14.75% of every dollar you earned was put into and interest bearing account for 40 years.
To ascertain if Democrats themselves view their own actions as just, openly plan for Republicans to do the same. Propose a bill that would be triggered if the Democrats succeed in expanding the SCOTUS by 4 seats in order to appoint new justices. The Republican bill would allow the next Republican president to expand the SCOTUS, again by 4 seats, in order to appoint 4 new justices. That way each political party would be allowed to expand the Court by the exact same amount.
If Democrats object, then the whole world will know that they, themselves, are unjust.
Appointing a justice to an open seat, hearing, or refusing to hear a nominee, is not Court packing. Court packing means increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court and having one political party fill all those seats. If it didn’t expand the Court from 9, then it’s not Court packing. Democrats have desperately tried to redefine the term in order to gain credibility and respectability to a power grab.
This is about power by any means. Nothing else.
It’s a physical axiom: Democrats are unjust.
Decrease Justices to one, with regional adjutants; increase, by orders of magnitude, the impeachment and conviction of deviant Justices who fail their oath and are derelict in their sworn duty to support the Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing but the Constitution, so help them God.
Democrats are intent on taking over all American institutions. They already have. The SCOTUS is one they haven’t gotten yet…yet.
Court packing is adding more seats. Court STACKING is adding more members of one party.
In my personal opinion, John Roberts compromised the integrity of the Court when he rewrote the ObamaCare Bill in order for it to be passed. Chief Justice John Roberts opened this can of worms, and it should be laid at his feet alone. Everything since then has come from Roberts getting involved with a political party for their benefit. Now, the American People do not trust the Supreme Court any more than they trust the FBI, DOJ, or Congress. How far these once great honorable names have fallen.
Like spoiled kids, the Dims ruin everything and anything they touch.
Since the US Supreme Court now acts like a legislative branch we should increase the US Supreme Court to 51 Judges and have the legislatures of each state vote on a justice and the 51 Judge be voted during the presidential election as the chief Justice and can only serve 1 4 year term.
This could be done through a Article 5 Convention of States Admendment.
No Art V, COS is needed to restore autonomy to the States. Help us enact Tennessee’s SB 692/HB1527. Regain State Legislature control of US Senate nominations by eliminating the Senate Primary. Shut K-street lobbyists out of the process.
https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Bill/HB1527.pdf.
Any law passed by a “packed Court” is likely to be ignored and may result in a revolution. With so few US counties in the hands of the left, with the left so opposed to firearms, with the left controlling so few natural resources, it will be a short revolution and may result in the left having to eat each other to survive.
All that needs to be done is to shut down highway and railroad transportation into cities for about 2 weeks. Easy enough to do if it comes down to that
Yea, I’ll throw the BS flag on that.
Back during the election of 2020, alleged truckers were on different mediums stating “if biden kills off the Keystone pipeline the truckers of America will shutdown the highways, park their trucks on all the streets around DC and walk away.
just one aspect of what the dems & republican parties, the military brass, media, captains of industry have done to the country, and we do nothing.
we let antifa, blm destroy cities, murder people, cow the police into inaction, elected officials at every level participate in treasonous activities with impunity
How to neutralize any society, “fear” fear of dying from a cold, fear of the state arresting you, destroying the economy, bastardize the moral of the military (see US Marine Corps) our masters telling us what you can do and what you can’t do.
And guess what they did it because we (collectively) became chicken shit cowardly children.
And the judiciary has become the biggest joke of them all, elected officials making law out of thin air (see mandate) Judges in contravention to the constitution, DA letting perps walk like it’s cool. Cops taking pay and benefits to do nothing.
But go out without your “face burka” and you are a dangerous criminal.
You’re not there to win popularity contests, ROBERTS! WE PAY YOU TO BE A STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST!
Well, now that we have heard from all the crazies in the democrat party maybe common sense and the Constitution will be counted on to have the last word.
So far he’s ruling how they want him to rule, siding with the three liberal justices in important cases. This is merely “performative” nonsense out of the chief justice. He’s learned this from worthless Republican officeholders like my congressman, the dude with the eyepatch.
Yes I agree. Roberts has been left on the important votes. He is the Earl Warren of this court but I would hope that he is doing more than posturing here. When will Roberts be the strict constructionist he was touted to be?
Worse. He’s WHINING. “I played appeasement ball with you in my decisions and you’re STILL threatening us? Come on, man!”
Yep, sounds like more stsus quo deflection to me as well. Jusr remember SCITUS has sevela cases in motion and we will see what is real and what are the illusions soon on those important defining matters like any mndates and if YOU actually control your own body or the government does ?
the democrats of the last thirty years or so starting with the horrid Clintons are the worse people to be around or tolerate. i use to be a democrat. i want to take a shower whenever i have to deal with them. horrible people.
Isn’t this, in essence, an insurrection?
Recognize this as another long term disastrous effect of USC 17Amendment. Do you really believe US SEnators would behave in such partisan manner if they were accountable to their home States (i.e. ” chosen by the Legislatures thereof…) vice beholden to K-Street lobbyists and their political parties for reelection. It is in the best interest of all Americans to support enactment of Tennessee’s SB692/HB1527 https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Bill/HB1527.pdf
Restore control of Senate to the States by eliminating the Senate primaries.
That does not help us in Massachusetts. Our legislature is so blue it is at midnight. We would still have the radical Warren and Markey. We had Kennedy and Kerry.
Wait till we get a new governor. The next one will be areal screamer.
JEG, study the bill & its effect. I am confident you will recognize it is so nonpartisan that it warrants bipartisan support. D or R, how can your State Legislators not support a bill that restores power to them as a sovereign political State. It is a needed improvement to our American civic structure. 692/1527 initiates as Tsunami restoring power to the States, be they Blue of Red. All States benefit.
And restart the purchase of Senators by lobbyists from the state? And also cause the Senate to grind to a halt when not enough Senators are selected by the states so that they can pass legislation? This is what caused the change in the first place.
There’s a reason (and some good ones) why they passed that amendment. Keep in mind the problems were wind spread enough for a 3/4 majority of state legislatures to agree to the change.
Let’s not reverse history out of some misplaced desire to go back to the original ways that at this distance now seem to be an okay thing to have. But there’s all sorts of problems and the Senators seemed to manage to find most of them.
Jakee308, How well has 108 years of popular/pollical election of Senators worked out for us?
Review the history. USC17A destroyed Federalism and started us on the road to the bloated, usurpative National Oligarchy we have today. 692/1527 is our very achievable 1st step toward restoring our Constitutionally ordained Federal Republic.
Roberts also wrote something about judges being light on ethics when they oversaw financial cases but chose not to recuse themselves where they or their families have a conflicting financial interest.