“Reasonable People Can Disagree”: Sotomayor is Latest Justice to Refute Court Packing Theory

As politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren push for packing the Court with a liberal majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly refuted accounts that the Court is hopelessly and dysfunctionally divided along political lines. The justice used an appearance on “Live with Kelly and Ryan” to tell the public that it should not misconstrue divisions on the Court because these questions are far from clear on the law and “reasonable people can disagree.” The remarks followed a joint statement by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and her colleague Justice Neil Gorsuch to debunk a NPR story by Nina Totenberg and publicly acknowledge their friendship.

Justice Sotomayor addressed “the biggest misconception people have” about the Court in rendering its decisions.

“Most people think of the law as black and white, that there’s an answer. But the reality is, there isn’t a clear answer. Most of the time when the Supreme Court takes cases, it’s because the courts below that are disagreeing about the answer. By the time the case comes to the Supreme Court, or to any court, actually — the courts below us or even the Supreme Court — it’s because the answer’s unclear. And that can be unsatisfying to people. They don’t understand why the judges are disagreeing. They don’t understand why it’s so hard…So that, I think, that will give people some solace when they feel the courts made a wrong decision — understanding that the answers are not as easy to come to as they may want.”

When asked about the falling trust in the Court by some people, Sotomayor acknowledged that all of the justices are concerned about that problem:

“We think about ways in which we can comport ourselves, among ourselves to ensure that the public has confidence in what we’re doing. I do need to discuss this a little bit with the public to assure them that one of the hardest things about our work is that there are no easy answers. Reasonable people can disagree.”

That is hardly the talking point that advocacy groups like Demand Justice and many commentators want to hear from one of the Court’s most liberal members. There has been a steady drumbeat in the media that the Court is being controlled by rigidly partisan conservatives and that there is no alternative to packing the Court with an immediate liberal majority.

Indeed, Sen. Warren recently explained that the Court had to be packed to bring its rulings in line with “widely held public opinion.” Others have insisted that the Court is now ruling so far outside of the law that court packing is the only response to such an attack on the rule of law. Figures like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe declared after the election that “the time is overdue for a seriously considered plan of action from those of us who believe McConnell and Republicans, abetted by and abetting the Trump movement, have prioritized expansion of their own power over the safeguarding of our American democracy and the protection of the most vulnerable who are among us.” (President Joe Biden later put court-packing advocates like Tribe on his Commission on the Supreme Court).

Others like Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, have called the conservative justices “partisan hacks.”

Sotomayor is only the latest to sound a dissenting note for those portraying the Court as hopelessly partisan.

When asked about calls to expand the Court, the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it would destroy the continuity and cohesion of the Court. She added: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

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.”

Chief Justice John Roberts recently criticized “inappropriate political influence” on the Court.

It is not clear if Sotomayor will now get the same treatment as Breyer who defended the Court. Breyer was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news host Mehdi Hasan who called him “naive” and called for his retirement. Demand Justice, a liberal group calling for court packing, had a billboard truck the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.”

In the age of rage, reasonable people cannot disagree. According to politicians like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the conservatives are partisans when they vote together while the liberals voting together are paragons of the rule of law.  The Court must be hopelessly partisan to justify the most partisan act of court packing. Yet, it now appears that even the most liberal members of the Court are part of the “naive” and reactionary forces standing in the way of “true reform.”

58 thoughts on ““Reasonable People Can Disagree”: Sotomayor is Latest Justice to Refute Court Packing Theory”

  1. That melancholy moment when the American people realize that Joe Biden is in the long goodbye.

  2. I think it’s a stretch for JT to argue that Sotomayor’s comments have anything to do with refuting court packing. He could have analyzed the actual comments instead of trying to fit them into the narrative he has been advancing.

  3. That terrifying moment when foreign leaders realize that Joe Biden is in the long goodbye.

  4. “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in [America] anymore. We must be over the rainbow [coalition]!”

    – Dorothy

    Mexican Justice: An oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

    I thought Sam Houston sent Santa Anna packing.

    Illegal immigration and affirmative action are unconstitutional.

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776, America

      1. Better restrict immigration, restrict the vote and restrict acts to the limits in the Constitution; that’s what the Founders intended and implemented in 1789.




  5. Clarence Thomas’s Wife Is Current Subject Of Scrutiny

    Last fall, Justice Clarence Thomas, in an address at Notre Dame, accused the media of spreading the false notion that the Justices are merely politicians in robes. Such criticism, he said, “makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference,” adding, “They think you become like a politician!”

    The claim that the Justices’ opinions are politically neutral is becoming increasingly hard to accept, especially from Thomas, whose wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, is a vocal right-wing activist. She has declared that America is in existential danger because of the “deep state” and the “fascist left,” which includes “transsexual fascists.” Thomas, a lawyer who runs a small political-lobbying firm, Liberty Consulting, has become a prominent member of various hard-line groups. Her political activism has caused controversy for years. But now the Court appears likely to secure victories for her allies in a number of highly polarizing cases—on abortion, affirmative action, and gun rights.



    The above article, by Jane Mayer, has been widely referenced by many other sources. It seems that activist Ginni Thomas has a long record of taking far-right stands on issue that come before her husband’s court. Yet Clarence never sees the need to recuse himself from hearings.

    1. -And what say you to Sotomayor’s (NOT a spouse’s) extra-judicial comments–mostly made to media, in interviews, and (the worst) to on-campus students, promoting left-wing ideology? How much criticism did SHE get from the media?????

      1. Lin, Sotomayor is NOT promoting ‘left wing ideology. Her view that the court is packed with conservative partisans is widely shared by half the country. And one should note that 3 of the Federalists were appointed by a twice-impeached president who never won the Popular Vote. The optics of that reality are decidedly negative.

        1. “Twice-impeached” but never convicted. Popular vote is not how we choose Presidents. Such intellectual dishonesty.

        2. The optics of that reality are decidedly negative.

          Peter, if optics were a concern, you would compose an original thought, stop your ridiculous charade of using zillions of sockpuppets, and let your inner gurl come out screaming in all of her glory. Take a cue from Sonia Sotomayor Dr. Frank-N-Furter

          1. Estovir,

            The optics are that you’re a paid stooge who changes names 20 times per day. And even then you require assistance from Mr Smith to prevent liberals from blowing you stupid cover.

    2. The left’s inability to focus on the topic at hand, and the overwhelming need to deflect, is obvious but tiresome.

    3. How dare you attack affirmative action on the Supreme Court, Clarence “Uncle Tom” Thomas being the prime beneficiary (Sodamayor being a close second).

      I’m going to ring up the political officer on this blog and report you to the Politburo.

      The judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, has not been objective, dispassionate and juridical, but fully politicized and weaponized as the 2nd legislative branch for over a century now.

      Justice Stephen Breyer just announced his retirement which was not random and natural but strategically planned to have the maximum political effect, facilitating the approval of a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) replacement before the midterms.

  6. The U.S. Constitution is a wartime governing charter, created during wartime and designed with wartime emergency clauses already built in (ie: 3rd Amendment, temporary suspension of Habeas corpus, etc).

    In 2022 we have rock solid and overwhelming evidence, that much of the post 9/11 emergencies were totally misrepresented by the Bush Administration. Warrantless domestic spying (felony at that time) was happening about 6 months BEFORE 9/11 when no wartime emergency existed. There has never been a ticking time bomb scenario in 20 years.There was never a legitimate reason to bypass the FISA court, also a felony.

    Where is the court on this? Where is the accountability?

  7. Like the hack NPR article, most people view the court through their own eyes and bias.
    It was good to see the justices push back and debunk the NPR article and it is good to see Sotomayor clear the air publicly.

    “Indeed, Sen. Warren recently explained that the Court had to be packed to bring its rulings in line with ‘widely held public opinion.’”
    According to more than a few polls, widely held public opinion is voter ID is a good idea too.
    Other widely held public opinions are the economy, inflation, empty shelves are a higher priority than what is going on in the Ukraine.

  8. There are lots of ways to expand the court.
    One per term.
    Anything that goes over nine sits on the senior bench and can handle emergency appeals and fill in for illness or recusals.
    The longest serving justice would be the next out, not the oldest. That would get us back to picking justices that have decades of history to examine. Instead of seating justices that would barely qualify for an internship, in another field.

  9. It must be so hard for the leftist to deal with Democratically appointed members of the court declaring that packing of the court would be a bad idea. It must be so hard to see their heroes fall one by one to the wayside. Pity pity. You can hear the teardrops fall to their slippery oil covered street.

  10. The Supreme Court needs to be responsibly enlarged. It is too small for the current number of circuits and the current population.

    1. Actually, the number of cases heard by SCOTUS is nearly half of what it was in the 1970s and early 80s, recently hovering between 70-100, whereas closer to 150 back then–and ALWAYS with nine or less justices. Perhaps more lower court judgeships, splitting one of the circuit courts of appeals is more pertinent to caseload, and certainly, less political.

      1. lin, that is all the appeals they are willing to hear, a small fraction of those filed.

          1. David Benson: Understood. However, since the Court has received several thousand petitions each year, and has selected, in several years, less than 80 to review/hear, that tells me that the Court is wisely choosing only those that represent novel or new questions. The more cases the Court decides, the less cases it is likely to hear, based on a reservoir of precedent/stare decisis

            1. lin, Jonathan Turley agrees with me, not you, for whatever that is worth.

              1. Yes, it is true that the professor once espoused expansion of the Court. Neither you nor I know what he currently believes, do we? Further, I simply offered you an alternative consideration. And of course you know that reasonable and educated minds, including several other law professors and those on the Court itself–liberal and conservative- disagree with the professor. Accordingly, a nice SUBSTANTIVE response from you to me, explaining why you believe my considerations were not pertinent or effective, would have been more appreciated. Thanks anyway.

        1. Probably been looking with jealousy at the schedule for Congress. Lots of time off. Not a lot of real work going on.

  11. Sotomayor might be a reasonable person, but she doesn’t have the characteristics that define a good Supreme Court Justice.

  12. The danger in America is hardly the Supreme Court. It is the left-wing control of MEDIA, that overpowers the messaging: –broadcasting and printing negative things about “conservative” justices, and creating positive stories about the “liberal ” justices (Sotomayor comes to mind-she just appeared on the Today show (NBC) yesterday. How many other SCOTUS justices have you seen giving pleasant little interviews on mainstream media and pushing their books?????) The domino effect: media attempt to influence voters by portraying Democrats as enlightened and “elite” (making you want to be a Democrat, -like in the old days, when you were hoping to receive an invitation to the local “country club”) and then broadcasting the “harm” caused by “conservative” justices, -which then affects public opinion, -which then affects VOTING. And by the way, we should remind people that, in the context of SCOTUS, “conservative” merely means a traditional approach to the law, marked by caution and moderation when considering changing or reversing existing law, absent serious reason to change. ALL Justices, irrespective of conservative or liberal values, are there to uphold the Constitution and interpret it in such a manner as to render true, objective justice, and to respect that we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. It is the MEDIA that constantly wants to package them into partisan jurists.

    1. “The danger in America is hardly the Supreme Court.”

      Lin, Is the Supreme Court a major cause of danger? I tend to agree with you and answer no. I think Congress’s abrogation of their legislative obligations with dependence on the Supreme Court is where the problem begins.

      1. S. Meyer: Interesting comment, but if Congress abrogates its legislative obligation, then there is no newly-passed law that faces muster or challenge before the Court. Please flesh out what you mean!

        1. Lin, who enacted the legislation regarding abortion. What laws did Congress pass? Effectively what laws did The Supreme Court create?

          1. OK, now I understand what you mean, and there is definitely an inter-play there as well. e.g., now that SCOTUS has again rejected review of Texas’s abortion law, once it issues an opinion in the Mississippi law, you will see a plethora of new state legislative actions across the country to comport with that ruling…(but that is not for Congress, it is for the states). SCOTUS, of course, does not create laws-it rules on their constitutionality, and the Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land,” not a court. So, “effectively,” -as you said-, SCOTUS ends up deciding whether laws may go forward….

            1. I think another point here is that the Supreme Court has been too willing to try and help solve societal problems that are properly matters for the Congress and the states. They did this in the civil rights area by rewriting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to permit preferences based on race and they have done it in environmental and other areas through deference to administrative agencies. It is astonishing that diametrically opposed policies can be pursued under the same set of laws depending on who controls the executive branch. Perhaps the OSHA vaccine mandate case portends a change. If this term is done right it is possible that there will be substantial decisions in the areas of abortion, environmental regulation and racial preferences. They all could be based on Gorsuch’s “who decides” question, though on racial preferences they could go further and say they are barred altogether by the constitution.

            2. Lin, my focus was on the original case, Roe v. Wade where the decision was more of a legislative act. I think Daniel below is a bit more complete.

              1. S. Meyer (and Daniel) “where the decision was more of a legislative act.” Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision. FIVE of the seven justices who UPHELD ABORTION as a constitutional “liberty” interest under the 14th Amendment were Republicans/conservatives…(the two dissenters were one of each political party). THAT is how a Supreme Court is supposed to operate, in upholding its understanding of the Constitution. Meaning,- I infer that the decision likely went against at least some of the justices’ personal views or morals. Of course, at the time, the decision was judged by conservative critics as judicial activism. I have never read the briefs nor listened to transcripts of oral arguments, but because the decision was presumptively against many of their personal beliefs on the topic, I would hope that their decision was based purely on the constitutional arguments presented to them. I do not believe I have ever read legal commentary suggesting otherwise.
                Notwithstanding, I agree with Daniel that “diametrically opposed policies can be pursued under the same set of laws depending on who controls the executive branch (although I would suggest, “who controls Congress.”) I am immediately reminded of Ron Klain and his smart-aleck comment about how to get around Congress to enforce a vaccine mandate…Gorsuch’s “who decides” principle is indeed coming ’round the bend.

                1. “Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision… THAT is how a Supreme Court is supposed to operate”

                  We disagree, Lin. The numbers voting for and against are not pertinent. Think of all the “legislation” the Supreme Court created. That legislation should have been created by Congress and only gone before the Supreme Court if there was a question of Constitutionality.

                  What did the Court do? It divided pregnancy into three trimesters and then created rules. Doesn’t that sound like legislation?

                  Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the right to dictate abortion law? It’s a state issue, not a federal one. If Congress wished it to become a federal issue, they had the power to do so.

                  What I am saying has nothing to do with my opinion on abortion. It has to do with preserving the Constitution and federalism.

                  1. OK, I’m back to confusion again (over your response). Where in the Constitution is abortion discussed? -You agree that it is not. So what is it that “has to do with preserving the Constitution?” Obviously, the disagreement was between the State of Texas and the woman (Norma someone)- much more about the protection of personal/private decisions against governmental intrusion than it was about fetal development. Of course, there had to be some consideration of where, along the spectrum, does a developing fetus invoke a state interest in ITS protection. That’s where “trimester” became relevant. I suggest that none of us (you, me, Daniel) knows that fetal development and “trimester” were part of the argument/briefs before the Court, but I would suggest that they were, and not something the Court, sua sponte, decided to consider. Please correct me if I am wrong. Bottom line: I am confused as to what you are driving at? Sorry. buddy.

                    1. The Constitution provides what the federal government can do, See the tenth amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

                      My focus was on Roe v. Wade.

                2. My point was that it doesn’t seem to matter who controls Congress. Depending on who controls the executive, under the same set of laws the executive branch can mandate racial preferences or seek to prevent them as illegal; and it can seek to destroy the coal industry and fossil fuels more generally or it can promote them. It seems odd to me that the executive branch should be able to pursue these diametrically opposed policies in ritical areas under the same set of laws. That is why the Court should focus on Gorsuch’s “who decides” question.

                  On Roe, the Justices mistakenly seemed to think that this societal problem had been delegated by the constitution to them to decide. I have no idea what the personal or political views of the Justices were who voted for it. Nor do I know how subtly influenced they were by the opinions then prevailing in the elite law schools and more broadly in the social circles in which they moved. Whatever their motives, the decision was poorly grounded in the constitution and so amounted in effect to a power grab.

                  1. Ah, but Daniel, SCOTUS answered your premise by shooting down Biden’s presumptuous “executive authority.” While the executive branch may be “able to pursue diametrically opposed policies,” isn’t it always the case that these disputes almost always involve a “same set of laws” interpreted/applied differently (the Court not in the business of issuing purely declaratory judgments on its own) and that’s how it gets to the Court (over separation of powers?) Second, while it is true that what exactly is included (but not expressly) in Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment protections has been litigated since the beginning of the nation, I don’t think the Roe decision was the first or the last to push the boundary of judicial authority to render an interpretive determination that ultimately (as I THINK S. Meyer is saying) finds its way into subsequent or amended law. Finally, as to Roe specifically, Roe was hardly the first to uphold procreative “privacy” as a fundamental constitutional “liberty interest,” -Court rulings regarding family and procreation decisions as “privacy/liberty” interests having preceded Roe by decades. And as far as the Court appointing itself as the ultimate arbiter of societal problems, the Court did not seek out the case; the woman appealed to the Court for a decision, arguing that her decision was a private, liberty-interest protected by the Constitution and prior case law. SO I’m not sure why you see this as a “power-grab?” Are you advocating that the Court should have stayed out of it, when a State was the appellee and the Court was petitioned for a constitutional interpretation? Or are you saying that the Court’s decision went far beyond interpretive deliberation and crossed over into legislation, if that is what S. Meyer is saying? But remember, procreation decisions had already been determined by the Court to be protected constitutional interests way long before Roe. Unless you both are simply referring to the “trimester” criterion part-of-the-decision as going beyond the Court’s hand? I apologize, I am still not grasping your respective complaints. But I really do appreciate reading comments and opinions from both of you on various subjects.

                    1. Lin, I’m not sure if you are missing my primary points. Abortion is not a federal issue. It is an issue to be left to the states. If there is a desire to federalize the laws regarding abortion, then there are ways to incorporate those ideas into the Constitution. That is what the amendment process is for.

                      The Supreme Court is not the place to pass legislation. Setting up the trimester system was a legislative act, not a judicial one. You seem to be making a case that the primary function of the Supreme Court need not be to deliberate constitutional issues.

                      I have personal opinions on abortion and can live with whatever decision is appropriately made. If you are worried about abortion disappearing, that will never happen.

                    2. “Abortion is not a federal issue. It is an issue to be left to the states.”

                      That is incorrect.

                      Under a system of checks and balances, *any* state law is a potential “federal issue” — i.e., a potential Constitutional issue. That is precisely the purpose of the Supreme Court — to decide whether federal or state law are constitutional.

                      Despite your attempt to spin Roe as a “legislative” decision, it was not. It was a judicial decision.

                    3. >> “Abortion is not a federal issue. It is an issue to be left to the states.”

                      >That is incorrect.

                      Sam, you might have a different legal argument, but what I said is not incorrect. The Constitution didn’t give the federal government the power to regulate abortion a la Roe v. Wade.

                      “Under a system of checks and balances, *any* state law is a potential “federal issue” — i.e., a potential Constitutional issue. That is precisely the purpose of the Supreme Court — to decide whether federal or state law are constitutional.”

                      You are touching on federal supremacy. State laws and constitutions cannot violate the federal Constitution or constitutional laws passed by Congress.

                      “Despite your attempt to spin Roe as a “legislative” decision, it was not. It was a judicial decision.”

                      It was a judicial decision that overstepped the bounds of the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court acted as a legislative body creating new law. Sam, I think you need to reread what I wrote and if you have a difference of opinion, explain it a bit better. You sound like something you aren’t, a statist.

                    4. “It was a judicial decision that overstepped the bounds of the Supreme Court . . .”

                      When it comes to the Supreme Court deciding whether a federal or *state* law is constitutional, there is no such thing as it “overstepped the bounds.” The U.S. is not a loose coalition of city-states. Its states are bound by the Constitution.

                      “You sound like something you aren’t, a statist.”

                      “Statist” does not mean what you seem to think it means.

                    5. Sam, you are messing up with the placement of your replies and, at the same time, messing up your responses. Perhaps you are messing up on who the responses are for? I don’t know, but your answers don’t sound like the Sam I previously read.

                      “Statist” does not mean what you seem to think it means. ”

                      Is this trite response meant as a rebuttal? It’s not an answer, or at least not a good answer.

                      “When it comes to the Supreme Court deciding whether a federal or *state* law is constitutional, there is no such thing as it “overstepped the bounds.”

                      That is true. Deciding what is or is not Constitution is the fundamental job of the Supreme Court, but legislating isn’t their job. Creating rules and regulations involving different trimesters is legislating. I don’t know how you can think otherwise.

                      “The U.S. is not a loose coalition of city-states. Its states are bound by the Constitution.”

                      That is correct, but there is such a thing known as federalism, something which seems not to be in your dictionary. 🙂

                    6. “[Y]ou are messing up with the placement of your replies”

                      I’m replying at the first available “Reply” above a comment. Should I be doing something different? All I see is a “Like” option below many of the comments.

                      “Statism” means government control over the individual’s life and property. That government could be federal, state, or local. That term includes many types of statism, e.g., socialism, fascism, et al.

                    7. “I’m replying at the first available “Reply” above a comment. Should I be doing something different? ”

                      Sam, that means that the reply will be to the person under whose name you pressed the reply button. If you do that, it might help if you used the name of the person you are responding to and provide a short quote to locate where the comment came from.

                      “Statism” means government control over the individual’s life and property.”

                      That is an acceptable definition that one can use to interpret my replies.

                      My discussion with you predominantly involved federal jurisdiction.

  13. “Indeed, Sen. Warren recently explained that the Court had to be packed to bring its rulings in line with ‘widely held public opinion.’”

    If there is a more ignorant and dishonest member of the Senate than Elizabeth Warren, I do not know who that would be. You would think that this law professor of 30 years would have learned somewhere along the line that we should be very thankful we have a Supreme Court to stand in the way of the Executive branch and Congress when public opinion pushes them to stray from Constitutional limitations.

    1. Warren wants to pack the court so that the court can declare that she is a native American which would allow her to continue to get special treatment and unearned admission to the club. It’s not the first time that a high ranking Democrat has asked for unearned valor.

  14. I always heard it as reasonable minds can differ. Problem is that there are damn few of those minds around these days

  15. Let me disagree (slightly). Joe may not be another FDR, but he is trying very hard. FDR gave us the “Swamp”, that vast pool of unelected bureaucrats who control everything we do. Joe is fortifying it.

  16. Democrats are 1930’s German Socialists
    RINO GOP are Chamberlain
    Trump and DeSantis see and fight evil like Churchill

    the time for “disagreement” with Democrats is OVER…they have been on the wrong side of history since 1812

  17. Joe Biden ‘Ain’t no FDR!’ As Jack Nicholson’s character in ‘A Few Good Men’ said while being interrogated by Tom Cruise’s character, “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” And Joe Biden most definitely is no FDR is the unvarnished indisputable Truth!

    1. FDR was a disaster who allowed Hitler to build power and refused to help the UK till it was almost too late! Democrats live the idea of all powerful Socialists…German Socialists… ala 1930’s. He also ignored the growing dangers out Japan. Millions DIED from his lack of true leadership and vision!

  18. While Democrats scream about “saving democracy” with their voting laws and Jan. 6th commission, they are in fact sabotaging democracy by undermining the legitimacy of the court and elections. They might as well pin a label on their court picks that says: “I’m a partisan hack. I was appointed by the Dems, and I’ll vote their way no matter what the law says.” In fact, why even have a court — if all liberals will a priori vote one way, and all conservatives another, it’s just a numbers game. Put them on a committee rather than dignifying this crude partisanship with a legal title. Packing the court didn’t work for FDR, despite his popularity. And Joe Biden ain’t no FDR.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks