Congress, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court

Unpacking by Packing the Court? The Left has a New Orwellian Mantra

As Democrats ramp up their efforts for the 2024 election, some are dangling an old enticement from 2020: if we win, we can pack the Court. In the last election, President Joe Biden refused to say if he favored packing the Court. Now the chatter has again started in the same quarters that a Democrat retaking the White House would allow the packing of the Court with an immediate liberal majority to force through sweeping court mandates.

Liberals are again stating that the Supreme Court is not fundamentally “broken” because a majority of justices do not share their views on legal questions. In the name of fighting ideological bias, they demand packing the Court with reliable ideological allies from the left.

This convoluted logic was on display in the Washington Monthly in an article on “how to fix the Supreme Court.” It is a must read for anyone interested in following the new rationalizations for destroying the independence of the highest court.

Author Rob Wolfe explains with alarm how a majority of justices now do not share his or Democratic views on various issues. Even though this Republican majority has repeatedly voted against conservative positions and often ruled unanimously, it is not enough for Wolfe. They have to be packed.

Wolfe rattles off extreme proposals matter-of-factly as all viable options:

Anyone concerned about the Supreme Court today should be working to prise that window open further. And to do so, they ought to draw on the robust and inventive debate that is brewing among scholars in law schools, think tanks, and advocacy organizations over how to fix the Court. Some of their ideas are bold structural changes: dividing the Court into rotating panels, stripping it of jurisdiction over certain issues, or controlling its certification process. Others are practical and based on policies already proven to work elsewhere, such as creating a “Congressional Review Act” for Supreme Court decisions, as already exists for executive branch regulations. What these ideas share is a recognition that the rights-giving 20th-century Court that liberals came to respect, even revere, is gone. Today’s progressives now realize that the high court is not an infallible fount of wisdom, and that it is historically more often a conservative force; and with that understanding comes a question that these scholars will help us all to answer: What is the Supreme Court even for?

That last question has been raised by Democratic members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) who has questioned the need for a Supreme Court.

Once again, packing the Court with reliable liberal votes is being proposed to “save democracy”:

President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders have not embraced this deeper reform debate, perhaps recognizing that the political moment hasn’t yet arrived. When the survival of democracy depends on each coming election, a little short-term thinking is understandable.

But one day that moment will come, and it may come suddenly: a wave election, a string of Senate vacancies, a scandal of new, earth-shattering magnitude, or a series of decisions as harmful as Dobbs. When that happens, reformers need to have a plan ready to go—a plan that will require broad public consensus about what problems need to be solved … and a detailed road map to achieve those goals through nitty-gritty policy…Being ready means spending years on movement building to bring together academics, policy wonks, and regular Americans, all waiting to grasp that perhaps fleeting and unforeseeable opportunity. Either that, or submit to being governed for another 30, 40, or 50 years by unelected partisans in robes.

However, what is most striking about the Washington Monthly article is how Orwellian the logic becomes once you admit that your are packing a court with ideological allies.  The argument is now that packing the Court is unpacking the Court.

The Supreme Court needs to be thought of as a neutral arbiter for political disputes, not just another player in them, the law professors argued—and so fixing it today is a question of restoring that aura of public trust. Right away, that goal disqualified the most talked-about idea at the time: court packing. Supporters of court packing like the political scientist Aaron Belkin argue that the Supreme Court has already been stacked with highly ideological conservatives who gained their seats through norm-breaking political brinksmanship, and so to add, say, six liberal or moderate justices would actually be to unpack it.

The article then adds the voices of the most radical elements of academia who support “resistance” by any means, including targeting and harassing justices.

“I want to suggest that courts are the enemy, and always have been,” Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown Law professor of the “disempowering” school, said on an afternoon panel with Doerfler, Sitaraman, and another Georgetown scholar, Victoria Nourse. In one exchange, Chafetz called for retaliation against the justices as individuals, wondering aloud whether Congress should consider withdrawing funding for law clerks or even “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.” The quip drew a faint chuckle from the crowd, but Doerfler, deadly serious, interjected: “It should not be a laugh line. This is a political contest, these are the tools of retaliation available, and they should be completely normalized.” What put us here, he said, is the idea that the Court is an “untouchable entity and you’re on the road to authoritarianism if you stand up against it.”

It is certainly not “a laugh line,” it is a chilling call for mob rule and political harassment of jurists for not ruling as demanded. Harvard Law Professor Ryan Doerfler wants to show that individual justices are “touchable” by harassing them as individuals when they dare to defy our will. He is not alone in such extremist ideology among the “radical chic” of academia.

I previously criticized Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz who supported more “aggressive” protests targeting justices “when the mob is right.” Such voices are common at Georgetown and other law schools.

The Washington Monthly’s article normalizes such extremist rhetoric and dangerous threats against the justices. It is another example of the license of the age of rage.

417 thoughts on “Unpacking by Packing the Court? The Left has a New Orwellian Mantra”

  1. Father Richard John Neuhaus publicly questioned the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the 1990s when it was issuing decisions conservatives opposed. That didn’t go well for him. He lost a lot of friends on the right. Just raising this as a point of comparison. Will Rob Wolfe lose friends on the left? My prediction: no, he will gain friends. In fact, what he’s saying aligns with the new mainstream Democrat Party position.

    1. This is likely more a result of party polarization in the 2020s (as compared to efforts to compromise in the 1990s). Completely different political environment.

      Back then, you could equate politicians’ positions to the locations of Italian ice stands on the Jersey shore. Italian ice vendors want to be as close to the middle as possible to maximize foot traffic.

      Now, politicians race to the extremes on both ends of the aisle.

      1. There’s something to that, but the both-sidesism ultimately does not reflect reality — if you look at the behavior of Democrats versus the Republicans, and particularly the lockstep of the former compared to the variations and infighting of the latter.

        1. Do you have any data to back that up?

          How are Democrats in lockstep? Fetterman, Sanders, Biden, AOC? There is very little consensus. If they were in lockstep, they would have been able to pass legislation before they lost control of Congress.

          And is this not a constant – there was considerable infighting from both parties in the ’90s as well.

          Politicians are much more polarized than the actual public is, though affective polarization among Americans has increased: https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/05/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-united-states-what-research-says-pub-90457

    2. Father Richard John Neuhaus publicly questioned the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the 1990s when it was issuing decisions conservatives opposed. That didn’t go well for him.

      How sophomoric of you. You fail to understand why Fr Neuhaus stated as such. I have been arguing for years on this forum the very points that Fr Neuhaus, and his more formidable predecessor, Fr John Courtney Murray, SJ, articulated. I have quoted extensively on here from Fr John Courtney Murray excellent texts. They were never discussed by anyone much like you failed to grasp Fr Neuhaus re: SCOTUS.

      Yet, who today really cares about Neuhaus, Murray or God? You, Seth Meyer, Iowan2, John Say, et al never defer to the thinking or arguments of Murray, Neuhaus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas. You folks are self-referential just like the Left.

      So yes, Fr Neuhaus and Fr Murray were right.

      THE END OF DEMOCRACY? THE JUDICIAL USURPATION OF POLITICS 1996
      – Fr Richard John Neuhaus

      As important as democracy is, the symposium addresses another question still more sobering. Law, as it is presently made by the judiciary, has declared its independence from morality. Indeed, as explained below, morality—especially traditional morality, and most especially morality associated with religion—has been declared legally suspect and a threat to the public order. Among the most elementary principles of Western Civilization is the truth that laws which violate the moral law are null and void and must in conscience be disobeyed. In the past and at present, this principle has been invoked, on both the right and the left, by those who are frequently viewed as extremists. It was, however, the principle invoked by the founders of this nation. It was the principle invoked by the antislavery movement and, more recently, by Martin Luther King, Jr. It is the principle invoked today by, among many others, Pope John Paul II.

      In this connection, Professor Robert George of Princeton explores the significance of the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). Addressing laws made also by our courts, the Pope declares, “Laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience. . . . Indeed such laws undermine the very nature of authority and result in shameful abuse.” We would only add to Professor George’s brilliant analysis that the footnotes to that section of Evangelium Vitae refer to the 1937 encyclical of Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning Concern) and other papal statements condemning the crimes of Nazi Germany. America is not and, please God, will never become Nazi Germany, but it is only blind hubris that denies it can happen here and, in peculiarly American ways, may be happening here.

      Augustine’s dictum remains the most famous formulation of the broader view of a Christian’s relation to the state: “An unjust law is no law at all.” Aquinas argued that God’s delegation of authority to civil authorities was linked to the fostering of virtue. When a ruler meets that test, when his laws and actions are in accord with the lex divina, and when human law promotes the tranquillitas ordinis, then human law is just; but if it “runs counter in any way to the law in us by nature, it is no longer law but a breakdown of law.”

      https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/11/the-end-of-democracy-the-judicial-usurpation-of-politics

      NEUHAUS WAS RIGHT 2018
      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/01/neuhaus-was-right

      1. Estovir – I remember reading that when it came out in 1996. I also read more broadly about it, and the reactions to it, in Randy Boyadoga’s Richard John Neuhaus: A Life in the Public Square – which I highly recommend (but then again, you’ve probably already read it too).

        One note: my original comment did not opine on the substance of his 1996 criticisms; it was limited to comparing other people’s reactions. Best wishes.

      2. Estovir, why do you do this to yourself? You are intelligent, but feel that to climb the ladder you have to knock others down.

        “Yet, who today really cares about Neuhaus, Murray or God? You, Seth Meyer, Iowan2, John Say, et al never defer to the thinking or arguments of Murray, Neuhaus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas. You folks are self-referential just like the Left.”

        Then you quote Neuhouse, who writes:

        “In this connection, Professor Robert George of Princeton explores the significance of the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). ”

        That reminded me of an earlier discussion we had about one year ago where Robert George’s name came up. You said, “Robert George is a role model par excellence… He was also vehement in his rejection of Donald Trump which proves his smartness.” I responded with the following.

        “Estovir, you have been a distinguished critic of Donald Trump and presently grab and push Robert George into your type of panic. I decided to listen to what he and a few others said since I like to know the Catholic opinion, especially since I have a considerable agreement with them.
        In a quick search of the Catholic Register and a few articles, I learned some exciting things about the feelings of George and others. Many attitudes changed significantly over time, becoming more positive, leaving me to doubt your portrayal of Robert George is sufficient. His voice regarding Trump changed.
        In 2015-2016 there was a split of opinions, and Robert George wrote:
        “And there is nothing in his campaign or his previous record that gives us grounds for confidence that he genuinely shares our commitments to the 1 ) right to life, to 2)religious freedom and the 3) rights of conscience, 4)to rebuilding the marriage culture, or 5) to subsidiarity and the principle of limited constitutional government.”
        The confidence lacked was mostly proven to be wrong. Today, I believe Robert George recognizes that at least from the little I read.
        What overpowered George’s ability to see the potential positive aspects of Trump in 2015 is seen in his statement,” His campaign has already driven our politics down to new levels of vulgarity.” I did not see his comments about Clinton and Biden’s theft, incompetence, lying, and selling America down the drain, along with dirty politics that even Trump stayed clear of.
        The following comment sums up what may be Trump’s most prominent
        obstacle for the more prudish element that cares more about personality rather than effective leadership.
        “There are still so many concerns about Donald Trump,” Mercer said. “Not only is this a man who has owned strip clubs and casinos, but he also bragged in his book about having affairs with married women.”
        Then there is this, “I think Donald Trump is more leftist than he is conservative,” Krason said. “Maybe he’ll say some of the right things to get support on some of these issues, but I don’t see this man having a well-developed political philosophy.”
        This comment reflects some of my initial fears. It turns out, Krason and I were wrong.
        Rooney wrote, “In this sense, Catholic thought is in sync with what Trump has brought forward. Perhaps less nuanced than some would like, he has tangibly and succinctly brought forth the urgent need to bring more good jobs back to America and to get wages rising again.”
        I read some more, and the mood of many changed. The vulgarity of Trump is not accepted, but many recognize his positive contributions. George goes out of his way to separate morality from Trump as a leader and sees Trump as a positive force.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/02/sinner-or-saint-george-santos-must-be-seated/comment-page-3/#comment-2251239

      3. Did you respond to an intelligent discussion regarding Robert George? Did you recognize what Robert George said? No. You have your personal opinions and you will be dam-ned to give them up no matter whose voice is saying differently.

        You have said many are not religious, including me. WHO ARE YOU? Do you engage in the seven deadly sins? The answer is yes, and in this most recent response, you add to your EXISTANT sins.

        You have quoted things from the Jewish Bible that I corrected. I added quotes from the Jewish Bible to make a point.

        Your grievance (like Enigmainblack) is that no one reads the right stuff. Quoting from the Torah, Nevaim, or Ketuvim is not good enough for you. Everyone has to quote from specific Catholics, and when they do, in disagreement with you, you do not respond.

        I respond to George with quotes from Lincoln, to John Say with quotes from Hayek and Friedman, and I quote the Constitution and elsewhere. None of these count for you because you are too arrogant for a discussion with people who disagree with you and can correct you on religious matters and economics. You can’t stand disagreement even on the Covid vaccine, totally accepting the moral authority of physicians paid by the government and pharmaceutical companies.

        The anger in you created by your excessive hubris leads to your type of outburst.

        “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” Proverbs 15:1

        I have mostly been polite to you, but that ends now. Your lack of collegiality has been noted by many. You owe all an apology.

        Now, you can run away and hide.

  2. Epstein’s First Law of Democrat Behavior: The Democrats will take any position, or perform any act, that they believe will help them obtain or maintain political power.

    Epstein’s Second Law of Democrat Behavior: That which the Democrats cannot control, they will destroy.

  4. The American Left has given up any hope of trying to persuade people of the wisdom of their views, which previously they believed. they could. Now it is full intimidation in all forms all of the time. It would almost be too kind to call this fascism or communism. It is a deeper illness.

    1. Edwardmahl,
      Illness indeed.
      It is a dangerous mix of fascism and zealotry.
      When I say they have more in common with 1930s Germany, Mao’s culture revolution, Stalin and modern day Iran, I am not kidding.

      1. @Upstate @ Edwardmahl

        Same here. And since they are doing it under the auspices of freedom in the United States – they are IMO worse than any of the aforementioned. We actually WERE a free, constitutional Republic, what the modern dems have wrought is unconscionable. I actually don’t know that we’ve ever seen a more insidious infiltration and implementation of totalitarianism in this country’s history. The modern democratic party is irredeemable. If any libs still have a spine to call their own, now is the time to find it.

  5. It’s remarkable how little Professor Turley knows about the history of political parties ramping up their efforts in upcoming elections by dangling enticements. In 2016, Trump relentlessly vowed to build the wall & make Mexico to pay for it & also repeal & replace Obamacare. So did Republicans follow up on those demands after they retook the White House & controlled all 3 branches of government? Nope.

    So what is Turley now up in arms about? He’s absolutely livid that “Biden refused to say if he favored packing the court in the last election.” Think about that. In Turley’s world, it doesn’t matter that when a Democrat retook the White House & Democrats controlled the Senate & the House after the last election, it didn’t allow the packing of the Court with an immediate liberal majority to force through sweeping court mandates.

    To this day, Turley is still furious about something Biden didn’t say during the 2020 election campaign. Congratulations, Professor, for showing us the textbook definition of convoluted logic.

    BTW, yesterday, Turley took note of Biden having “the lowest polling numbers of any modern president.” He kindly provided a link to Gallup’s December poll showing Biden with 39% approval. What Turley didn’t take note of is the other December poll which shows only 36% of Americans approve of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job. Care to venture any guesses why the Supreme Court has their lowest approval ratings in history, Professor?

  6. 𝐉𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ‘𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧’ 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩’𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞
    Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley provides analysis of Donald Trump’s attempt to claim presidential immunity from criminal prosecution stemming from Jack Smith’s investigation into 2020 election interference.
    [Link] foxnews.com/video/6344558046112

    Video:
    https://vod.foxnews.com/media/v1/pmp4/static/clear/694940094001/4989db88-df31-43ce-901f-4ccca56d1875/142da47b-ea8c-4c11-97a9-a2e5613924fe/main.mp4

    1. I think Trump’s lawyers did a disservice to their case when they couldn’t say that a President could be prosecuted for ordering Navy Seals to assassinate a political rival. They took this position because they draw lines between official acts and other acts by looking at the acts themselves rather than the purposes or objectives of the acts. So, because the President may give orders to Navy Seals as part of his official authority, anything he orders them to do is shielded from prosecution. This is an absurd position. They should have distinguished orders given for a legitimate constitutional objective from orders given to effect an unconstitutional purpose.

      The judges may nonetheless decide this on procedural grounds by concluding that the immunity question here is not a proper subject for an interlocutory appeal. They relied in the oral argument on a Scalia opinion that said there needed to be an express constitutional or statutory immunity for an interlocutory appeal to be made. Both Trump and the SC disagreed with this view.

      If they decide this way the case would go to trial. Presumably Trump would seek en banc and then Supreme Court review.

      1. Everyone can suddenly forget about Impeachment and Removal.
        The demonrats can openly demand prosecution and convictions right before and during the election, which has obviously already been underway.
        They can all pretend the appointment of jack smith isn’t illegal when it is.
        They can break every law and rule, and claim it’s urgent, before Orange Hitler rises to the lifetime forever dictatorship throne and institutes pogroms and concentration camps and the new KKK party lynching blacks and browns and jews from ocean to ocean

      2. Trump’s lawyers could not make this argument because coordinating the falsification of electoral certificates is not a “legitimate constitutional objective.” Regardless of whether the prosecution can support this claim, this is what has been alleged and therefore, for the privilege to apply, the privilege would need to cover it.

        1. You might be right about that particular claim, but they could have made the argument anyway and fought it out claim by claim on the question of official v other acts. Remember, this appeal is only about whether there is immunity for official acts. Chutkan held there was not. If there is, then the next question is whether what Trump did in each charge was official or not.

      3. What do you think about the following exchange?

        Henderson: Let me switch and ask you, how do we write an opinion that would stop the floodgates? Your predecessors in their OLC opinions recognized that criminal liability would be unavoidably political.

        Pearce: So, a couple of responses. Of course, that was with respect to a sitting President. I think the analysis is extraordinarily different with respect to a former President, which OLC, I’m sorry —

        Henderson: But with respect to being necessarily political.

        Pearce: … I also want to push back a little against this idea of floodgates. At least since the Watergate era, fifty years ago, has there been widespread societal recognition including by Presidents and the Executive Branch that a former President is subject to criminal prosecution.

        And Nixon was not about private conduct. Nixon was about — among other things — using the CIA to try to interfere with an FBI investigation. He then accepts a pardon, understanding that, after having resigned, so that also undermines this impeachment first argument. After Nixon, we then see a series of independent and special prosecutors investigating a range of different types of conduct.

        … Never before has there been allegations that a sitting President has, with private individuals, and using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system. And frankly, if that kind of fact pattern arises again, I think it would be awfully scary if there weren’t some mechanism by which to reach that criminally.

        1. All of this discussion is garbage – it is the product of people completely ignorant of history.

          Nixon did NOT use the CIA to interfere with an FBI investigation.

          Nixon was entirely uninvolved in the details of the plumbers operations until after the fact.

          Some of us LIVED through all of this – AS ADULTS and actually remember it.

          The FATAL issues for Nixon were – he participated (nominally) in the after the fact coverup of a crime, buy authorizing the political solicitation of funds for the legal defense of the perpitrators.

          The other issue with Nixon is that he TRIED and FAILED to use the IRS to go after his political enemies.

          In otherwords he faced impeachment for doing the things that Obama, Biden and Democrats have been doing in the past decade.

          And the Pardon argument is nonsense.

          There is no such thing as “accepting a pardon”. Pardon’s are a power of the president.

          Ford Pardoned Nixon. PERIOD. The Pardon would not have been inoperative if Nixon had said “No I do not want it”.

          This all ties together if you do NOT try to find loopholes and play the stupid word games those of you on the left are playing.

          The official actions of a president – those related to the executive powers of the United States are immune from prosecution.
          With ONLY the possible exception of AFTER impeachment and removal – and even that is questionable.

          A President is PROBABLY immune from prosecution for ANYTHING while in office. But that is not actually resolved.
          But they are absolutely immune from prosecution for actions involving the executive powers of the untied states.

          That means everything foreign policy related. That means everything border related, that means everything related to the enforcement and execution of the laws of the country – including election laws.

          Claiming you do not like the presidents application or understanding of those laws is IRRLELVANT.

          Biden and Obama have BOTH violated the immigration laws of the US. Are we going to charge them criminally with obstructing the enforcement of the law ?

          Not without impeaching them FIRST. Arguably not at all.

          1. Believe whatever you want. But Henderson’s beliefs about it have a legal impact (no matter what you believe about her statements), and yours are legally irrelevant.

        2. What I think about the exchange is that I look forward to Trump’s DOJ in 2025 going after Biden and the rest of his administration for:
          funding state sponsors of terroism.
          Obstructing the execution of our immigration laws.
          For drug dealing and human trafficking.
          For corrupt dealings with China, and on and on.

          There is ZERO possibility that the courts will get through this prior to the election.
          Which Trump is increasingly likely to win.

          If you wish to keep Trump from succeeding in doing to you – what you aretrying to do to him
          STOP now, before it is too late.

          The WORST case for those on the left is to get a favorable ruling regarding immunity, without thwarting Trump’s election.

          Such a ruling will do no harm to Trump, but will give him and His 2025 DOJ carte blanche to make up crimes and go after those on the left.

          And few of us will have any sympathy.

          Lets remember here – the “charges” against Trump – are NOT that he personally took a gun and murdered someone.,
          or that he robbed a bank. They are not that he stole money from the treasury.

          The charges are that he fought tooth and nail in every legal and constitutional way possible against an inarguably lawless and corrupt election, that with each passing day we learn MORE about the malfeasance involved.

          You are literally arguing that Trump is a criminal because it did not get precisely correct the way that you rigged the election.

          1. According to Trump, Biden has absolute immunity unless he’s impeached and convicted first.

  7. We must properly understand progressive before we can effectively deal with them.

    The core of hate the progressivism activists have shown us is their bigotry for anyone that disagrees with them and utter hate for the status quo. It’s as if we as a nation are going through a generational adolescent rebellion that’s lasted for nearly 25 years and it’s run by an immature adolescent mentality. If it’s considered the status quo, these Orwellian totalitarian fools paint a bullseye on it!

    Sweeping across the United States in the 21st century is a level of hate and irrational hysteria coming from progressives that has never been seen before at any point of our history. Progressives have shown us who and what they are by their words and actions. Their hate and hysteria is literally targeting things that make the United States of America who we are.

    Modern day progressivism activists hate the United States of America. Yes these absurd “progressives”, and those that support them, literally hate (feel intense or passionate dislike for) the USA, it’s hysteria. Their absurd hysteria and hate is an obsession against the status quo. They hate that the 1st Amendment applies to everyone, they hate ethical journalism, they hate the concept of innocent until proven guilty, they hate the justice system and anyone or anything that supports it, they hate civility, they hate the police, they hate anyone that opposes their ideology, they hate a Constitution that dares to allow others to oppose their ideology, they hate that our basic freedoms and Liberty allow some people to make more money than others, they hate that those they oppose have any rights, they project a belief in rights for me but not for thee, they hate the fact that equal opportunity doesn’t equate to equal outcomes, they hate our system of education, they hate that all our history (both good and bad) make us what we are today, they hate the status quo, they hate, Hate, HATE. Their hate is a malignant cancer to our society, our way of life i.e. our culture, and our country and their anti-American ideology viewpoints are growing like a cancer across the entire spectrum of our society.

    Our society and culture are constantly under “attack” from immature adolescent progressivism activists. It’s crystal clear to me that progressivism activists are out to destroy anything and everything that they consider the status quo all in the name of change, which seems to be their Holy doctrine. Progressivism is literally anti status quo in the 21st century, if something exists as a current “status quo” then it’s anti-progressive (see their Holy doctrine above) and evil and therefore must be destroyed. Progressives consider their Holy doctrine of ideological changes to be an improvement to society and culture and anyone that opposes the changes of their Holy doctrine is obviously evil and must be destroyed.

    Irrational progressivism activists have four tenants of “truth”…

    1.Progressives are right.
    2. Everyone else is wrong.
    3. Wrong is evil.
    4. Evil must be destroyed.

    …that’s the dead end of the 21st century irrational progressivism activists’ ability to think critically and they are trying to infect the rest of the population with their nonsense bigotry.

    Remember Obama’s words calling the progressivism activists to action during his Presidential campaign in 2008…

    “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

    Well folks we are reaping the societal and cultural fallout of that call to action and now we have a horde of irrational progressivism activists actively trying to fundamentally change the USA, and the world, and they’re doing everything they can to implement their irrational anti status quo social and cultural changes regardless of the lack of common sense, critical thinking or logic in their “ideology”; I used that word “ideology” very loosely when it comes to progressivism because being nothing but pure anti status quo is not an ideology it’s ignorant and uncompromising immaturity. Progressivism is an enemy to the underlying status quo that has helped make and maintain the USA for nearly 250 years.

    There are epidemic levels of absurdities infecting our society and it’s undermining everything that makes the United States what it is. The brink is on the horizon.

    The Supreme Court of the United States is the last word in maintaining the status quo of the United States Constitution and progressives know that. Progressives know full well that the Supreme Court is their ultimate obstacle standing in their way of dismantling the ultimate status quo in the land, the Constitution. Once the highest law in the land is no longer enforceable in the highest court in the land progressives have won and our representative Democracy, liberty, and freedom will collapse. Progressives have shown us their true colors. When the law of the land collapses, what follows is quite likely to be absolute and violent persecution of anyone that disagrees or appears to disagree with progressives and their justification will be pure majority rule “democracy” by passing all courts. For a reference of how such a thing might work look up the show The Orville and watch the episode called Majority Rule.

    Here’s a statement derived from a comment a fellow commenter over at Ethics Alarms posted a while ago; thank you Humble Talent for the inspiration

    “At the end of the day, totalitarian progressivism activists, requiring their usual hive-minded complete subservience, will sit proudly on their throne of ash having destroyed their impure targets, and anything that supported the target, for a lack of progressive purity and then, without using a shred of common sense, critical thinking or logic, they’ll move on to their next impure target with a tragic lack of self awareness.”

    Not so long ago there was a ominous prediction made about the United States that should still be ringing the bells of every freedom loving patriot across our nation…

    “We will take America without firing a shot … we will bury you!

    “We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.

    “We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”
    Attributed to the late Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

    Progressives are literally the destructive force within the United States that Nikita Khrushchev predicted, it’s happening right in front of our faces and there are “progressive” (that’s an oxymoron, they’re actually regressive) fools out there cheering it on, yes Liberty dies with thunderous applause.

        1. Why would I waste time addressing your lies about those on the left when your mind is clearly closed to counterevidence?

          I like the ad hom, though, so nice of you to respond with a common fallacy.

          1. Anonymous wrote, “Why would I waste time addressing your lies about those on the left when your mind is clearly closed to counterevidence?”

            Closed to counterevidence? That sir is a bald-faced lie. Now you’re just intentionally making up lies about me to deflect the conversation away from that which you cannot intelligently counter with actual evidence.

            I challenge you to prove that what I wrote in my initial comment is false.

            Anonymous wrote, “I like the ad hom, though, so nice of you to respond with a common fallacy.”

            Fallacy? Wow, you just keep digging yourself into a hole.

            It’s fact based truth that internet trolls and political hacks don’t address specific points and only talk about the author and your comment is another piece of evidence to support that fact based observation.

                1. No, I’m pointing out fallacies because you’ve invoked them.

                  Just as you beg the question with
                  Irrational progressivism [sic] activists have four tenants [sic] of “truth”…

                  1.Progressives are right.
                  2. Everyone else is wrong.
                  3. Wrong is evil.
                  4. Evil must be destroyed.

                  You present no evidence for it because you cannot. It’s a ludicrous caricature. But you pretend it’s true, and you proceed from your assumption: begging the question.

                  I’m a progressive.
                  Sometimes I’m right and sometimes I’m wrong, and sometimes I believe things that aren’t either one (as with matters of taste).
                  Sometimes other people — everywhere on the political spectrum — are right and sometimes they’re wrong. This is a feature of being human.
                  Often, being wrong is simply a matter of being mistaken, which taken to its extreme might be delusional. Other times it involves lying. Some lies are white lies, and some are more harmful. Most instances of being wrong aren’t evil, though some are (e.g., Hitler’s genocidal acts). If there’s a peaceful way to counter evil, that’s a good thing, but arguably, this isn’t always possible.

                  1. Anonymous wrote, “You present no evidence for it because you cannot. It’s a ludicrous caricature.”

                    No, it’s not a “ludicrous caricature”, it’s been so blatantly self-evident for the last 15+ years and that’s based on observed the actual words and actions of progressives that only a complete imbecile or a bald-faced liar would deny its truth. So which are you, a bald-faced liar or a complete imbecile.

                    Anonymous wrote, “I’m a progressive.”

                    I’m beginning to think that you claiming to be a progressive is just another one of your trolling lies. Personally I think you’re just an internet troll trying to instigate others into anger filled arguments to see if you can catch them in some kind of gotcha so you can attack them personally. We’ve all seen your unethical trolling the only question I’ve got is are you or are you not one of the typical morally bankrupt progressives, either way you’re still a unethical troll.

                    Now I’ve got a sock drawer to sort, which I can tell you will certainly be a more intellectually stimulating than reading your nonsensical trolling.

                    1. “that’s based on observed the actual words and actions of progressives”

                      Yet you don’t quote a single thing, nor cite any news about the actions you refer to.

                      I think YOU are the one trolling here, making things up, pretending that they were said and done, caricaturing a huge number of people, and not presenting a shred of evidence because you insist that it’s self-evident. It’s NOT self-evident. It’s your projection, and I’m a counterexample. You’ll clearly do what you want, but you’re showing me to be correct when I said that “your mind is clearly closed to counterevidence,” and what I wrote about my actual beliefs as a progressive is counterevidence.

        2. You have no point, except right-wing babble. Ya know, projection is the most sincere form of Trumpism. You protect autocratic strongmen like Trump to make revisionist history to promote radical authoritarian fascism seem normal. The one thing one can always count on is projection from the Trump cult.

          1. FishWings wrote, “You have no point, except right-wing babble. “

            And yet you don’t have the knowledge or the intelligence to any point I made all you do is figuratively kick sand on my feet and run away like a coward. Want to have a debate FishWings then let’s have at it.

            FishWings wrote, “Ya know, projection is the most sincere form of Trumpism.”

            Projection eh? Let’s see if you have the intelligence to explain that claim.

            I provided a rather extensive listing of absurdities that are infecting our society and none of them look like projection. Yet you’re too cowardly to try to actually debate, mud slinging is all you idiots have.

            FishWings wrote, “You protect autocratic strongmen like Trump to make revisionist history to promote radical authoritarian fascism seem normal. The one thing one can always count on is projection from the Trump cult.”

            Attack, attack, attack with fabricated nonsense, is that really all you have?

            I’m not currently and have I never been a Trump supporter. I’ve never voted for the man and it would take an unpredictable act of God for me to change my stance and vote for that loose cannon mouthed narcissistic POS.

        3. @Steve Witherspoon – Good post. Please don’t get sucked into feeding the trolls. Ignore them, your far to good a poster.

          Internet troll:
          In Internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, a newsgroup, forum, chat room, online video game, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception.

          1. Anonymous wrote, “Do you prefer “attempted autogolpe” to “coup”?”

            I don’t “prefer” either term because I don’t think they apply to the January 6th riot. That said; at least that’s a term that’s more definitively inline with what the political left’s propaganda narrative that’s been pushed since Jan 6th.

            By the way; using your definition, any President or other elected official that has ever or ever will make a claim/declaration that an election that was won by an opponent is illegitimate has attempted an autogolpe even if the election actually was fraudulent.

      2. There was no coup.
        You just keep repeating the same lie over and over again as if that makes it true.
        It does not.
        It just puts on full display your TDS and the zealot you are.

        1. It is not a question of if Steve believes in reality.
          It is the reality that he cites that is fact and truth.
          We all see it.
          Except zealots like yourself.

    4. @stevewitherspoon

      You are correct. Do the math and see which generations we are talking about, and then do the math and see who raised them and taught them. Then see who and what you’d like to hold accountable. None of this just ‘happened’.

      1. James,
        Well said.
        My own father, a boomer, has said it was their generation that began the whole shield their children from all things bad or icky. The helo generation. That lead to the lawnmower generation. And Gen Z, what the heck do we call them? The detached from reality generation?

      2. James,
        WE WERE WARNED!!!!

        Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt literally predicted this kind of thing very publicly in her 1999 book “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” and in videoed interviews with her and she was publicly tarred as a lunatic conspiracy theorist quack by everyone that supports the public education system.

        Here’s a couple of quotes from Iserbyt…

        “Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientist.”

        “The American people are underwriting the destruction of their own freedom and way of life by lavishly financing through federal grants the very social scientist who are undermining out national sovereignty and preparing our children to become the dumbed-down vassals of the new world order. It reminds one of how the Nazis charged their victims train fare to their own doom.”

        “Social engineers use a deliberately created education “crisis” to move their agenda forward by offering radical reforms that are sold to the public as fixing the crisis – which they never do. These new reforms simply set the stage for he next crisis, which provides the pretext for the next move forward. This is the dialectical process at work, a process our behavior engineers have learned to use very effectively. Its success depends on the ability of the “change agents” to continually deceive the public which tends to believe anything the experts tell them.”

        There has been a “gradual transformation of our once academically successful education system into one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes. This is how fascist-socialist societies train their children to become servants of their government masters. The successful implementation of this new philosophy of education will spell the end of the American dream of individual freedom and opportunity.”

        There are a lot more related quotes out there.

        1. Steve,
          Fascinating.
          I already have a dozen books on my book list but that one may have to go to the top.
          Thank you.

  8. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡’𝐬 𝐓𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐒𝐡𝐮𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔
    A top prosecutor on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team recommended that the FBI shut down an investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2016, despite ample evidence of suspicious activity related to hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign transactions, Fox News reported.
    By: Debra Heine ~ January 5, 2024
    https://amgreatness.com/2024/01/05/prosecutor-on-special-counsel-jack-smiths-team-shut-down-fbi-investigation-into-the-clinton-foundation-in-2016/

  9. Tom/Estovir as Waters Says:

    “I told my uber liberal girlfriend the morning after the election, when we awoke to find that somehow Biden had gone from 40 electoral votes down to 40 up”.
    ………………………………

    Apparently Tom/Estovir, like Donald Trump, doesn’t know that votes are counted all night. The idea here seems to be that election workers go home at 11 PM and don’t come back till 7 AM. This mentality is also unaware of time zones.

    1. A civil war would not go well for anyone! The stock market would crash and everyone’s 401 K would melt!

      1. Whose side would the U.S. Military be on? It would probably split like last time.

        1. The US military is commanded by the President. If some yahoos decided that they wanted to start a civil war, the US military would be on the side of the United States.

          1. Depends.
            Is it a lawful order?
            If the president of the USA suspends the Constitution, declares martial law on un-Constitutional grounds, no enlisted or officers are compelled to obey an unlawful order. Even coming from the president.
            We had training on what is a lawful order and if we are compelled to obey it.

            1. In what universe would it be an unconstitutional order for the military to quell attempts to start a civil war?

      2. Seeing as how with exception of the Marines, all the other services have missed their recruitment quotas, 60% of the US Army are obese, we have shipped a huge amount of ammunition to the Ukraine and Israel and service men and women are posting videos on TicTok in uniform of how bad military life is, not sure how many would stick around to find out.

  11. “What these ideas share is a recognition that the rights-giving 20th-century Court that liberals came to respect, even revere, is gone.”

    This is exactly where they go off the rails. Regressives believe that our rights are given to us by governments, because their deity IS government. Any right that is granted by men can be taken away by men, such as the “right” to an abortion.

  12. The evil Left’s primary strategy is to “pack” the American electorate with millions of illegal aliens, which will destroy the America we grew up in.

  13. Sadly, it is true that the Supreme Court’s budget is controlled by Congress. It would seem that they are obligated to fund the Court to fully execute its function but not any extravagances. Even more sad would be the spectacle of the Chief Justice being brought before Congress to be excoriated over a budget request.

    While Congress may have control of the SCOTUS budget and the number/composition of the Court, they don’t have the authority to control the Court in any other way. This is purely a separation of powers argument. Justice Alito also has made it known that Congress imposing ethics rules on justices would be a violation of the separation of powers.

    Trying to limit by the force of law the ideological outcome of the Court or its ability to function will not be permitted by the Court. As long as the Supreme Court is the arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional and executive actions, the only way to change how a co-equal branch of government operates is via the amendment process.

  14. I want to suggest that courts are the enemy, and always have been,” Josh Chafetz,

    It appears that Mr. Chafetz pines for they type of government that historically put people like him in gulags or gas chambers. I suggest giving him a one ticket to Gaza and let him teach law there

  15. I would think that the threat of packing our Supreme Court with doppelgangers of the last affirmative action DEI hire for the court would be enough to terrorize half the nation into voting for Mr. Potato Head if he were running against the democrat candidate.

  16. So what? The Republicans ran on court packing for 30 years till they got their 6-3 majority. It is fair the the Democrats to the the same.

    1. One would hope Truth, Justice and the American way has no political bias.

      *There are no ‘democrat’ judges, there are no ‘republican’ judges .. . there are only American judges.

    2. The difference is that the Democrats changed the rules and then cried when it worked against them. Do not forget the Democrats set the rules in place that gave the Republicans the whip. If they would have left everything in place as it was the court would be different today.

      You do realize over the last 30 years (your timeframe) there have been six Presidents, three Republicans and three Democrats. Do you realize that if Harry Reid did not kill the filibuster, then the Democrats could have prevented this so called Court packing. Makes one think they shot themselves in the foot with an unforced error.

  17. I always bring up my extreme solution for any of these radicals that encourage changing the systems within our government: Why don’t they just leave? There are 194 other countries in the world. Pick one that matches your vision of governance, and move there.

  18. Not since the Civil War has this country been in such peril. I cannot recall a moment in our history where a major political party was dominated by totalitarians determined to create a one party state. If they are not stopped, at some point, the unwashed masses will awaken and “there will be blood”. I don’t see a more peaceful ending unfortunately. These people are ruthless and they mean business.

    1. @alank

      I think so too, and I didn’t used to. Say what you will about the left historically (and I do), it becomes clearer with every passing year that what they have slowly become post 1960s, culminating now, is incompatible with a free society. The ruthlessness is the thing – they will never relent; I never thought I’d see the day fascism would arise in the fashion it has across the West. We need to fight it before we find ourselves fighting each other.

      Even if we were to split as a nation, dividing up the country would be basically the same exercise. What is happening in the Middle East should be an object lesson, but it’s falling on deaf ears. It’s all very concerning.

      1. I can honestly write that I never dreamed 20 years ago I would be writing such comments. I grew up in a very liberal family but my parents loved America and revered its traditions and the Constitution. Not these thugs.

      2. James,
        I go back to the best solution would be two different societies running in parallel, the two shall never meet.
        But as we have seen, leftists cannot tolerate anything they cannot control. Rather than just not watching Fox and changing the channel like normal people do, they attempt to ban it. Rather than go to another baker, they try to force that baker to do something against the baker’s faith. They try to force their agenda on children in public schools with pornography. They pass laws that could take children away from their parents if the parents did not use their pronouns. They try to criminalize anyone for not using someone’s preferred pronoun. They try to criminalize conservative speech as hate speech.
        As long as it does not involve children, I am perfectly fine with them living their little weird world over there and me over here with the rest of the normal people. You do you over there, I will do me over here and we politely ignore each other.
        Whole lot better than shooting at each other.
        But woke leftists cannot have that. So we see them going to extreme lengths by passing intolerant laws, using DEI to enforce racism and the dumbing down of our children, using courts and unelected bureaucrats to keep candidates off the ballot like Iran does.
        So, yes, now I can see a civil war occurring.
        I just read an interview with geopolitical and financial cycle expert Charles Nenner. He stated,
        “The problem is everywhere. You may remember we said 10 years ago that the biggest problem for the United States is going to be internal. There is a huge problem. Nobody knows what to do anymore, and people are afraid to speak up…

        History says if you are not allowed to say certain things, then you stop thinking certain things. This is what is written in the book ‘1984.’ …

        So, this is the end of what is going on in the United States. I think America is lost, but it is not a surprise. The Dutch ruled for 250 years, and then the Spanish, Portuguese came, and then the English came. Every big society ends, more or less, after 250 years, and now it’s the United States…

        People are talking about new systems. They think Marxism is good, but it did not work because the people who did it before made mistakes.

        If you don’t wake up, this is what you are going to get, and that is a communist Marxist situation.”

        Scary idea.

    2. Yup, with each passing year the Democrat party becomes increasingly extreme and fanatical. The Covid mandates, the censorship industrial complex, and the gross abuse of the justice system (among others) reflect that at the same time it is becoming increasingly authoritarian and incompatible with fundamental American values. What alternative is there to Americans who value freedom?

      2. OldManFromKS,
        Well said.
        All one has to do is look at the actions taken by the woke leftists. The degree of anti-democracy actions.

    3. Alank,
      Unfortunately I agree.
      I have said more than a few times here on the good professor’s blog, civil war must be avoided at all costs.
      Watching our leftists friends drive for a totalitarian state through their words and actions, I fear that war is unavoidable and coming soon.

  19. I think that all they are saying is just obfuscate what they really want and that is to pack the court after they expand it. Expansion of the court would normally require 60 votes to beat the filibuster but the filibuster has been slowly whittled away so that federal district courts and circuit appeals courts can now be voted in with 51 votes and the filibuster does no interfere. And then I believe it was Harry Reid (D-Nevada) who eliminated the filibuster for the Supreme Court and that was followed by 3 conservative justices being appointed by Trump. The Supreme Court was conservative for most of the years from 1865 till the mid 1930’s when FDR wanted to pack the court after they struck done some very socialist programs and his own party stopped him. Eventually he replaced 7/9 with appointments. Very liberal in the 1950’s-1970’s and then back and forth as the Republicans finally broke a near 60 year drought in the House. Reagan-Bush were in control 12 years (that’s when character assassination of Supreme Court justices started, Robert Bork and others) . Then Bush Cheney for 8 yrs then Obama then Trump for 4 years. Democrats should definitely blame their own. RBG was asked by Obama to retire in 2014 so he could appoint a democrat but she refused and then her death under Trump solidified the the 6-3 majority.
    Most of what the Democrats want would require a constitutional Amendment but increasing the court size does not. It has had other numbers besides 9 but the 9 has stuck since the civil war.
    A middle approach would place term limits on justices and freezing the number at 9 but both would require a constitutional amendment. And then Democrats are not interested in fairness, only “their” way.
    I notice most people quoted in the article live in DC and up to the Northeast. Do they not understand that there is a major power shift occurring in this country with people moving to the South And Mountain states.
    I would suggest some of these actions would not sit well with large segments of the conservative community. Threats and actions can fly both ways.

  20. Well Democrats could start their “court packing” with Claudine Gay right ? I hear that she needs a job….

    1. Claudine Gay has a job at Harvard making almost a million dollars a year. She resigned from being Harvard president. She is still there teaching HATE.

Comments are closed.