Below is my column in Fox.com on the impact of the reelection of Donald Trump and the flipping of the Senate for the Supreme Court. The election may have proven one of the most critical for the Court in its history.
Here is the column:
In 1937, it was said that a critical shift of one justice in a case ended the move to pack the Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was described as the “shift in time saves nine.” In 2024, a shift in the Senate may have had the same impact. Trump’s victory means that absent a renewal of the court-packing scheme and other extreme measures of the left, the Court will remain unchanged institutionally for at least a decade.
The expectation is that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas could use this perfect time to retire and ensure that his seat will be filled with a fellow conservative jurist. Justice Samuel Alito may also consider this a good time for a safe harbor departure. They have a couple of years before they reach the redline for nominations before the next election.
The election means that court-packing schemes are now effectively scuttled despite the support of Democratic senators like Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.). Given Kamala Harris’s reported support, the Supreme Court dodged one of the greatest threats to its integrity in its history.
The impact on the law will also be pronounced. Returning the issue of abortion to the states will remain unchanged. A younger generation will grow up in a country where the voters of each state are allowed to determine what limits to place on abortions.
Likewise, gun rights and religious rights will continue to be robustly protected. The checks on the administrative state are also likely to be strengthened. Pushes for wealth taxes and other measures will likely receive an even more skeptical court.
The possible appointment of two new justices would likely give Trump a total of five to six nominees on the court. Liberals previously insisted that it was time for Justice Sonia Sotomayor to leave the Court, a campaign that I opposed. The appointment of seven of the nine justices by a single president would be unprecedented. (I expect, as with the calls to “end the filibuster” as undemocratic, the liberal campaign to push Sotomayor to retire ended around 2:30 am on Tuesday night).
Trump has shown commendable judgment in his prior nominations. All three—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—are extraordinary jurists who have already created considerable legacies. I testified at Neil Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation hearing and still consider him one of the most consequential and brilliant additions to the Court in decades.
These justices were subjected to appalling treatment during their confirmation process, including attacks on Barrett for her adopting Haitian children. New Trump nominees can expect the same scorched-earth campaign from the media and the left, but they will have a reliable Senate majority for confirmation.
These justices have shown the intellect and integrity that bring credit to the Court, including each voting in key cases with their liberal colleagues when their principles demanded it. Trump can cement his legacy by continuing that legacy over the next four years with nominees of the same caliber.
In this way, the election may prove the key moment in ending one of the most threatening periods of the Court’s existence. With the loss of the control of the Senate, the push for new limits on the Court and calls for investigations of conservative justices will subside for now. However, the rage in the media and academia will only likely increase.
Both media and academic commentators pushed for sweeping constitutional changes, including packing the Court or curtailing its jurisdiction. Many saw the Harris-Walz Administration as the vehicle for such extreme measures. Harris herself pledged to “reform” the Court.
Some liberals figures even called for the dissolution of the Court and other radical changes.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, called for the scrapping of key constitutional elements in his “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.” In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”
In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai denounced what she calls “Constitution worship” and warned that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”
In a New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Other law professors have denounced the “constitutional cult” and the First Amendment as the Achilles Heel of America.
Given that the majority of voters reject panic politics and radical agendas, these figures are likely to become more activist and aggressive.
I recently debated a Harvard professor at Harvard Law School on the lack of free speech and intellectual diversity at the school. I noted that Harvard had more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.” It is not that Harvard does not resemble America, it does not even resemble Massachusetts in its virtual purging of conservative or Republican professors.
We just had a country where the majority of voters chose Donald Trump. Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.
Yet, the professor rejected the idea that Harvard faculty or its students should look like America (only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative). So, while the Supreme Court has a strong majority of conservatives and roughly half of the federal judges are conservative, Harvard law students will continue to be taught by professors who overwhelmingly reject those values, and some even reject “constitutionalism.”
The result is that the Court will continue to be demonized while the media and academia maintain their hardened ideological silos.
The rage will continue and likely rise in the coming years. However, this critical institution just moved out of harm’s way in this election. It will remain the key stabilizing institution in the most successful constitutional system in history.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Prof Turley:
Your blog about “saving the Supreme Court” from packing understates the bullet we just dodged. Had the Democrats won the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, they could have (and maybe would have) done 4 things that many in their party have advocated. Had they done these four things, our freedom and democracy would have been forever ended.
First, they could have ended the filibuster. While some have advocated that ending the filibuster would make government “more democratic”, it actually accomplishes the opposite. Ending the filibuster means that the majority party, in this case Democrats, could have passed any legislation they wanted without any need for minority party support. So, let’s assume they use their new-found power to pack the Supreme Court with 4 like-minded progressives. Why stop at adding 4 new seats. Add 6 or 8 seats in case some of the current 3 liberal justices are not progressive enough.
Then they could pass legislation to make “hate speech” and “disinformation” a crime. While no one likes the hate speech and lies people tell, I doubt very many current justices would go so far as to allow these actions to become a crime. But with a packed court, anything is now possible. The result would be that anyone objecting to the actions of the federal government could be deemed as spreading hate, landing themselves in jail. Likewise, news outlets stating negative forecasts for the economy could be jailed for spreading “disinformation”. Welcome to 1984.
At least two years from now or 4 years we could vote these people out of office, you say. Not so fast. They could pass legislation nationalizing elections, something Democrats have expressed interest in. For instance, they could eliminate the Electoral College. Right now, that would require amending the Constitution, but our progressive Justices could rule the Electoral College is an “anachronism” in need of being replaced with popular vote. Then they can pass legislation allowing non-citizens, including illegal aliens to vote. If that is not enough to ensure eternal rule, allow non-residents to vote. Shouldn’t Mexicans and Canadians have a right to voice in how North America is run? They could even create the “North American Union”, just like Europe.
Lighteredknot Yep, they accuse DT of destroying the Democracy of which Progressives have been quoting since FDR. What happened 11-05-2024 electing DT just temporarily retains the US Constitutional Republic which is hanging by a frayed thread. The Progressive Democracy would allow Calif and NY, Illinois popular vote to elect a President.
[Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, called for the scrapping of key constitutional elements in his “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.” In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”
In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai denounced what she calls “Constitution worship” and warned that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”
In a New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Other law professors have denounced the “constitutional cult” and the First Amendment as the Achilles Heel of America.
Given that the majority of voters reject panic politics and radical agendas, these figures are likely to become more activist and aggressive.]
I would suggest that these individuals, and all others of their ilk, are residing in the wrong nation and should swiftly pack their bags for some totalitarian/socialist utopia of their choosing. How dare they imply that it is the constitution, rather than their own misdirected and somewhat dysfunctional brains, that are misunderstanding the universe around them.
I am very tired of being lectured by anarchists, revolutionaries and malcontents about the evils of our nation. Surely these irritators could find a better home if they find this one so contemptable. Our founding fathers did not try to recreate the British empire in 1776, rather we just started from scratch building a better version and, likewise, these unhappy marxists, etc. should just move on down the line and expend their energies elsewhere constructing their ideal utopia somewhere other than here. I mean; if you don’t like the movie, then you leave the theatre but you don’t destroy the place first.
@whimsicalmama
I am tired of it, too, and the response to Tuesday from ever-increasingly Marxist Western Europe is telling. The troll activity here today is interesting to me as well – the leftist narrative really did get blown to absolute smithereens here in the good ol’ US of A – there is nothing for them to stand on, and any attempts simply look foolish at best, puerile and insane at worst.
I promise: the state of places like Germany or modern Britain under modern labour – before too long they will be begging for the freedom we gave ourselves this week. Liberals here will be enjoying their freedom, and will never stop to ponder why that is the case.
Often the few carry the many – not this time. We stated unequivocally as a nation we are done with all of that. The red flips and recalls in CA are for the history books, just stunning.
* The first lesson is the Constitution is political SCIENCE. It was written , created as a political system when the nation’s were kingdoms and principalities throughout the world for crissake! What can’t people get that! SELF GOVERNING.
Every time a law is written the people’s freedom is diminished. For a free people there are libraries of laws.
Gorsuch understands that. This court under the commerce clause is destroying freedom! The commerce of buying and selling freedom. The commerce of buying babies. The commerce of buying and selling body parts.
REASON. It needs a reason and not an emotion.
Congrats on the reprieve .
* BTW the United States political system has lived many economic systems.
Nations not nation’s and some other typos.
Gin and tonic anyone?
The very first act of the new senate should be to illuminate hearings for cabinet, confirmations, and proceed directly to vote.
It is past time for giving the libturds their own medicine
Eliminate
Professor Turley,
Thank you for a great comment.
You are surely right when you say:
“New Trump nominees can expect the same scorched-earth campaign from the media and the left, but they will have a reliable Senate majority for confirmation.”
Fortunately the Trump victory shows that the media attack dog has lost most of its teeth. Nobody with a scintilla of intelligence believes the corporate media anymore.
We go to sites like Res Ipsa Loquitur and many others for honest analysis. Fortunately, the younger generations seem to be doing the same. No wonder the Deep State, World Government types are desperate to crush X and free speech sites. They must not win that fight.
Get it in a package deal with Bidens memoir, the Art of the Steal Kamalas new book, There Just Weren’t Enough Dicks To Suck.
“Nobody with a scintilla of intelligence believes the corporate media anymore.” Unfortunately there are a vast number of citizens without a scintilla of intelligence but with the right to vote and that is the greatest threat to this nation – hordes of uninformed/misinformed/incompetent voters who are prey to the progressive machine.
True. I recently spoke with two high school seniors from different schools who did not know what Washington , DC is. Twelve years of public school ‘teaching’ and THAT is the outcome? Our education industrial complex from university to public schools and through the money-grubbing corporations and ‘nonprofits’ is a disaster for true learning. It has to change.
“Fortunately the Trump victory shows that the media attack dog has lost most of its teeth. Nobody with a scintilla of intelligence believes the corporate media anymore.”
Young, 68 million people voted for Kamala. Unless there is a financial or direct political reason for them to vote for Kamala, where did they get their information? The MSM. The MSM is bleeding badly, but it is still a place where many go. We can only guess how many tens of millions would be lost without the MSM. Being lost would mean they wouldn’t have voted for Kamala, but many may have for Trump.
I remember the 60s. Milton Friedman was on PBS teaching free-market economics from his book Free to Choose. I remember the left-leaning Walter Cronkite mainly providing the news in a balanced fashion. I remember the far left being disliked by Republicans and Democrats. What happened? The left eased its way into education and the media. They waited, and up to today, the Democrats became fascists, hating the Constitution. An MSM like it is today, even without teeth, is a great danger.
S. Meyer–
I think what you say is true. I may have overstated my point. Better would be that we no longer have “Voice of God” Cronkites in action. Instead we have Maddows and the like. That is a huge shift. If the MSM had its previous power and prestige it would have destroyed Trump. Instead he seemed to gain power with every attack.
Meanwhile, the tech generations seem to be abandoning the MSM like 78 rpm records [or audio cassettes] and going to internet sites. Joe Rogan, I think, garners more views than the alphabet ‘news’ programs.
I think I read that the broadcast alphabet news programs don’t pay for their licenses to use public airwaves. Perhaps they should pay.
“I think I read that the broadcast alphabet news programs don’t pay for their licenses to use public airwaves. Perhaps they should pay.”
I bet Trump already has someone looking into the broadcast licenses of the MSM.
S. Meyer- “Unless there is a financial or direct political reason for them to vote for Kamala,”
We have grown gigantic bureaucracies in this country and many of those bureaucrats and their families will likely oppose any politician who wants to shrink government. Washington, DC voted nearly 100% for Kamala. Another reason to demolish some of those agencies. Same might be said of teacher’s unions. They tend to retard rather than advance true education and invariably support autocratic government.
If we obtain the needed votes in the House and Senate, we will see a shrinking of the federal bureaucracy and laws to change how the union operates. The union should never have existed in its present form because the counterforce to a federal union is not the government but the people who are too distant. FDR agreed that federal unions should not exist. Calvin Coolidge and Reagan showed us what they thought of government agencies’ right to strike.
Government unions are money printing machines and propaganda outlets for Democrats/socialists/communists and little else.
Government unions should be disbanded, or the power to strike should be eliminated. The numbers should be cut in half, and when we shift the powers to the states, in half again. The rules preventing the firing or demotion of public employees should mostly disappear.
Until we disinfect and shrink/eliminate government agencies there will be no path to reversing the socialist path longed for by progressives sin e the time of Woodrow Wilson. How we shrink the leviathan will take more than the time and energy of just one Trump. But it is the only path to save this nation.
Whimsical, entropy insists that we drift toward the average, an inevitable decline. The energy we expend just to sustain our nation’s quality shows how delicate this balance truly is.
Reserve your copy of Trump’s new book, “The Art of the Plea Deal,” -before it sells out!
For all those that say move on. Can Ashley Babbitt move on? Can the hundreds of people that protested J6 whose lives have been ruined by partisan politics move on? No, America cannot move on, not until the whole truth comes to light about 2020 and the sedition practiced against Trump. Only then can justice be served and our basis of law upheld. Without it, it’s meaningless other than a weapon of words and a judiciary to be used by those in power against anyone they choose.
Lighterknot says; Traveler you spoke it. That is why DT should appoint an AG who will implement GITMO Tribunals and prosecute these individuals. This Is now the only opportunity that will be presented. The pungent odor of these corrupt individuals is nearly overwhelming.
Reserve your copy of Trump’s new book, “The Art of the Plea Deal,” -before it sells out!
The Plea Deal Of The Millenium that Biden ordered his Attorney General to offer to The First Felon Son, where he was to get a slap on the wrist in exchange for absolute immunity for every gun crime, every tax fraud crime, every bribe accepted, every dollar from the ChiComs and Putin that was laundered… failed.
Damn it! The judge actually read the plea deal instead of just rubber stamping it. And then Merrick Garland’s lawyer had to glumly confess to the judge that she was right: no federal prosecutor had ever seen such a blanket coverage of criminality dismissed by such a plea deal before anywhere in the annals of American legal history. It would be the first – except they couldn’t get it past an honest judge. If only they could have tried it in New York… so much easier!
How Biden and Merrick Garland cobbled that plea deal offer together for The First Felon Son is certainly worthy of a book – perhaps you could write it, Anonymous?
As for a Trump plea deal – none were offered and none were accepted.
The idea that the kangaroo prosecutors, judges, and courts in New York will survive appellate higher courts proves that hope springs eternal in the black hearts and souls of Anonymous and its’ fellow Soviet Democrat police state fascists.
The Dems will continue their attack on President Trump, we heard that yesterday in the Harris concession speech, NY James speech and the report Biden administration wants to “Trump Proof”things they’ve done. The Marxist left has a stranglehold on what’s left of the democrat party and won’t let go. Members of the SC will continue to be attacked when their decisions are at odds with the radicals ideology and threats of packing will continue. If President Trump is successful in lowering cost, secure the border, begin deportation and negotiate peace in Ukraine and Israel they will be at best minimized.
“the report Biden administration wants to “Trump Proof”things they’ve done”
According to reports I read, they started to do that today by making the entire Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge off-limits to oil and gas mining. Although I continue to be puzzled at claims that what one President can do by executive order or agency regulation cannot be undone by the following President in exactly the same manner. I see that premise asserted regularly, but have never seen satisfactory explanation.
Biden moves to limit oil drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shortly after Trump victory
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/biden-moves-limit-oil-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-shortly
“Kamala Calls For Peaceful Transfer Of Power To Adolf Hitler”, reports the Babylon Bee. Which is as good as the rest of legacy media. Probably better. D)
The stamp their feet and cry out, I don’t like these rules so we must change the rules so we can win. Once upon a time it worked in Kindergarten and they have never forgotten the thrill of control of their classmates. Some of has have recognized how the fantasies of our youth have sometimes shaped are lives for the worse and some have never grown up. Of course if in the future in their response to packing the courts the Republicans attempt to do the same they will say that the devil himself has been called forth by their political rivals. In the old days we just called them spoiled brats. Dictators always employ such a measure to increase their power. Even the Democrats voted against FDR’s attempt to pack the court. Thankfully Kamala’s wish to do so will be found on the ash heap of history where it belongs.
“They have a couple of years before they reach the redline for nominations before the next election.”
Has Jonathan Turley met the Republican Party? What red line? Amy Coney Barrett was nominated 22 days before an election.
Our bitter and intersectional Uncle Tom Black Nationalist enigmainblackcom has joined us today with his scalding hot tears of Marxist rage that a majority of Americans dismissed the lies of his fellow racists and Marxists, Bolshevik Barack and his husband, Moochelle:
Has Jonathan Turley met the Republican Party? What red line? Amy Coney Barrett was nominated 22 days before an election.
There are two possibilities here: one is that the self-identifying elitist enigmainblackcom and proponent of Critical Black Racism Theory is so ignorant of the history of SCOTUS nominations under different conditions that this is an expression of his ignorance.
The second is that enigmainblackcom is in fact an educated man with an honest interest in SCOTUS, knows the history of SCOTUS nominations – and has decided to come here to lie by insinuation.
Let’s give our occasional guest Uncle Tom and Black Nationalist Marxist the benefit of the doubt. As his Dear Leader, the execrable Bolshevik Barack would say: “This is a teachable moment”.
Merrick Garland was nominated by Bolshevik Barack under these conditions: Bolshevik Barack was in the last days of a lame duck presidency when the opposition party controlled the Senate.
Comey Barratt was nominated by Trump under the opposite conditions: Trump was NOT a lame duck president and his party controlled the Senate.
Nominations by lame duck presidents to opposing justices NEVER get a vote. No matter which party holds the presidency and which opposing party holds the Senate. The idea that Merrick Garland was a Republican exception to history is one more Soviet Democrat lie.
We can end here by reminding Uncle Tom that his massa’ Jim Crow Joe Biden as the Senator at the head of the Judicial Committee told then President Bush that no lame duck president faced with an opposition Senate should make judicial nominations. But if he chose to do so, massa’ Joe Biden and his Democrats would ensure they did not pass.
An educated elitist, enigmainblackcom should be able to find the links of then Senator Biden’s lecture to President Bush on lame duck SCOTUS nominees.
It wasn’t too long after his long, prolonged racist attack on SCOTUS nominee Justice Clarence Thomas. Should be easy to find.
When’s the next election? In a couple years.
Intersectional Uncle Tom enigmainblackcom cried ‘foul!’ with this:
Has Jonathan Turley met the Republican Party? What red line? Amy Coney Barrett was nominated 22 days before an election.
Sit your racist Black Nationalist Marxist ass in a seat and we’ll review some SCOTUS history going all the way back to George Washington:
No President has ever failed to make a nomination when an opening happened in an election year. Not ONE from either party. Including Obama. Even when the nomination happened AFTER the election was decided, but before the incoming president was inaugurated.
Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, Presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate.
Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas to serve as Chief Justice in 1968. (Exposure of Fortas ethics violations led to him resigning from the Supreme Court shortly afterwards).
The other nine times, presidents made the nominations AFTER the election in a lame-duck session. In no case did their party controlled Senate reject a nominee or refuse to act on a nomination. They. Were. Confirmed.
BUT… on the other hand, ten times between 1796 and 1968 Presidents have attempted to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year when the OPPOSING party controlled the Senate.
Only two of the ten nominees were confirmed by that opposing Senate. Obama decided to try his luck nominating the ethically corrupt Merrick Garland – his right, as well as following the precedent of always making a nomination. But, like almost all previous precedent for lame duck nominees to an opposing Congress, his nominee was also rejected by the opposing Senate.
There is absolutely nothing out of precedent for Republicans opposing a lame duck Democrat nominee and kicking Merrick Garland to the curb. No matter how much Soviet Democrats and raging Marxist racists claim otherwise.
It’s all precedent and historical norms. Including before Obama, when Bush’s final nominees were blocked by then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy.
They got exactly the same treatment Obama’s Merrick Garland got just a few years later. Among those Bush lame duck nominees who never got a hearing from the Democrat Senate were appellate court nominees Peter Keisler, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthews and Glen E. Conrad. The The last three seats would later be filled by Obama’s nominees: James A. Wynn Jr., Albert Diaz, and Barbara Milano Keenan.
Look at that! Three judicial seats stolen by Obama! Maybe angry Black Nationalist Marxists cosplaying as elite intellectuals should be required to attend civics classes if they’re unaware of all of this.
Aside from historical president, unfortunately for Obama (and his corrupt nominee), his Vice President Joe Biden had just enacted The Biden Rule during the last Bush presidency.
Then Senator Biden, while Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told then President Bush that he shouldn’t make a nomination while the opposing party controlled the Senate. And told the Democrat controlled Senate that if Bush did make a nomination, they should refuse to consider it. Biden wanted to enforce the historical precedent for presidents nominating justices to block a Bush nominee, and he succeeded in doing that.
So as Obama violated his VP’s new Biden Rule, the Republicans used the same Biden Rule (originally intended by Democrats to stop Bush from making a nomination, not Obama) to kick Obama’s nominee to the curb.
Thus endeth the teachable moment, enigmainblackcom. Any questions or would you prefer to slink away and fact check the lesson?
Another Leftard who is completely clueless, and just swallowed all the garbage the MSM force fed him/her. Isn’t the least bit curious about where those “extra 20 million voters” for Biden disappeared this election? Oh, that’s right, mass mail-in balloting was not a factor this election. SMDH
How do they teach Constitutional Law when they have the Constitution?
How do they teach Constitutional Law when they hate the Constitution?
* Hate it? Teach what it is and then teach how to break its laws of course.
The real “Achilles Heel of America” is financial. Eventually the accumulated fiscal deficits will catch up with us, and it won’t be pretty. This could happen in the next 4 years, or not.
I would add to your financial threat the way that many people will sell their souls to China, the nation that could possibly depose us as the world’s most powerful and influential power.
BINGO.
Well said professor.
Excellent piece. Yes, so very many things have been given some breathing room, and I hope we make the most if it and recalibrate.
I find upon some reflection that some of my own thinking is biased and not particularly useful, and I need to open my own mind more in relation to others; we can provide some of the grace the outgoing administration and its allies can’t or won’t.
We stood together on Tuesday, we can stand together going forward as well. A fair and balanced court is critical to our national well-being.
In the middle of Trumps first term, when the Dems first began the drum beat of “when we beat him, we’ll pack the court with Liberals for ‘fairness'”, I wondered why Trump didn’t just hand a list of about 100 new prospective Justices to the Senate for immediate confirmation. After all, “packing the court” goes both ways.
Carried to a logical extreme, the “tit for tat” between the parties of confirming alternate slates of conservative or liberal Justices, depending on who was in control, could eventually result in every citizen of the United States becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
Which, of course, is precisely the system we have now.
We could make the court immune to packing and whatever other momentary political urges come along with a constitutional amendment to set the of number of justices at 9 and ensure life tenure. I suspect the public would support that and that a sufficient number of states would ratify it. It maintains the tradition and ensures stability and favors neither party.
I would not support a Constitutional Amendment to fix the Justices at 9 since there are many future developments that would make increasing the number of Justices desirable, such as an expansion of the US to have many more states, including states on the Moon or Mars. A wiser approach would be an amendment that reads: There shall be one Supreme Court composed of a Chief Justices and Justices who serve life tenure, and the number of Justices shall be fixed by law, but no law altering the number of Justices on the Court shall take effect unless enacted by a 2/3 majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
“since there are many future developments that would make increasing the number of Justices desirable, such as an expansion of the US to have many more states, including states on the Moon or Mars. ”
What is the required correlation between the number of states and of justices? While there are internal SCOTUS practices for which judge or judges will sit on an case not requiring a full panel, it’s difficult for me to believe that such rules are too inflexible to change to accommodate a small expansion (assuming that is even desirable – what is the essential difference between making DC or PR a state, an undesirable eventuality that we just avoided, and adding, for example, Mare Frigoris?) without adding more justices.
“constitutional amendment to set the of number of justices at 9 and ensure life tenure.”
100% agree with your first idea. I suggested setting the number at 9, or even 7 (you would allow the “extra” two justices to serve until they retired or died, and not replace them) yesterday. Article III Section 1 appears to already guarantee lifetime tenure, absent impeachment and conviction: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,”
The catastrophe is averted and delayed but not eliminated. The Democratic Party is led by totalitarian thugs who will remain relentless in their pursuit of a one party state and a SC that functions as an extension of the executive branch. They might be impatient but they are persistent and unchanging in achieving their goals. Complacency will only facilitate their attempts to end the constitutional democracy as we know it ,
No comment.
Congratulations to trump. You committed treason and got away with it.
For 8 years we have hard about election fraud and how the Democrats are cheaters. Here we are, after an election you won, Where is the fraud?
The firehose of lies will now continue for 4 more years.
May god have mercy on the United States and I hope we emerge in 4 years stronger than today.
Anonymous, for the very first time in all of your posts you make a plea to God for mercy. Somehow now you recognize God as a merciful God. What has been missing is your prayers for mercy. Now in your moment of sorrow over the election you finally call his name. He will know you by your works.
We dodged a real bullet on November 5th
How sad , I am still praying for you, apparently it’s working. Baby steps. Sorry for your loss /s.
I am guessing you all agree we will have 4 more years of a firehose of lies.
Interesting you did not notice god was lower case.
No I have no reasonable expectations that tings will go well for us the next 4 years. trump has dementia and he will put terrible people in positions of power. Sad outcome is virtually guarenteed.
And what happened to all the voter fraud? One day it will just disappear, just like COVID.