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.
I highly recommend Neil Gorsuch’s “Over Ruled”. After reading it, I feel very comforted knowing a person of his modesty, fairness and intellect is on the high bench. He is definitely anti-elitist.
The Supreme Court needs 15 justices. Expansion remains a good idea.
Stirring the pot just to get a reaction, eh?
@Anonymous
Yes, he is. There is literally nothing remaining of the narrative we have been fed for years, it was good and properly exploded; the modern American left were handed their a**es this week, across the board. I don’t expect them to stop trying, though, they do not seem to possess the wisdom or self-awareness or even basic human decency to comprehend what happened, which is astonishing in itself, but for now, this is all the trolls have. It is very apparent they have nothing or very little to say if they haven’t gotten a memo or directives.
Some of them are like my cat. If they don’t attention from someone they start to whine and cry.
I could easily accept another 6 conservative justices but the cost would probably be prohibitive. If either side tried to do this alone then I could foresee states saying they would no longer accept the judgements of the Federal System. Andrew Jackson basically did that when the Indian Removal Act was declared illegal.
@GEB
Me too, but you and I are talking like grown ups. I promise you, the likes of ‘the squad’ or AOC, and the people that support them are decidedly NOT that, and they are not doing that, they are not having these conversations.
We made a good start this week; we have now got to carry it through, likely for a long time; the damage done since 2008 is pretty much incalculable.
Recognize what has actually transpired the past 30 years, and stop putting any faith whatsoever in the actual cause. Very few under 40 can be handed a torch of any kind. We do not get to retire. Sorry, but it’s true. Our finger bones are going to be mighty tired at the end of our lives, for all we have had to correct, and to the helicopter/lawn mower parents – it’s kind of your fault. 🤷🏻♂️ Really. Blame yourselves, if you are capable of that kind of self-awareness.
We should not “need” Judges to settle our affairs. But this assumes people are competent, emotionally mature and have some type of cognitive function, preferably around the median. That SCOTUS is now the decisive arbiter for many of cultural “hot button” issues is a testament of how “we the people” aren’t e pluribus unum
To wit, Laura Helmuth is Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American, which is published by Springer Nature. She has now protected her tweets on Twitter/X, but the damage has been done. For good reason folks are having a field day with her not no science-y comments.
We shouldn’t need judges to conclude Laura Helmuth’s comments are hateful, vicious and unprofessional, especially as editor of an alleged science journal. But here we are, a morally broken nation, including apparently the “scientists”
Laura Helmuth @laurahelmuth
I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f****** fascists
Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back
https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1854247712268664937
Alas, Laura earned a PhD in cognitive neuroscience, which is not a basic medical science, but psychology.
That SCOTUS is now the decisive arbiter for many of cultural “hot button” issues is a testament of how “we the people” aren’t e pluribus unum
Part of the blame for that lies at the feet of the Warren court. Political issues should be decided democratically in the political sphere, unless there is a clear mandate in the Constitution for the decision to come out a particular way. The Warren court started discovering such constitutional mandates where none were evident from the text. Only then did the phenomenon of large protests marching to the Supreme Court begin. Those issues should have stayed in the legislative sphere where the Constitution left them. A political march on the Supreme Court, no matter the issue, is an aberration that should never have had to take place, if the Supreme Court had remained faithful to the constitutional text.*
*This is a point that Judge Bork made in his 1987 book, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law.
Very true. The Warren Court had appropriate power to overturn separate but equal and to rule where Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional but they did not stop there. And they overstepped their bounds and made too much of disagreements that were political and they should have let the political process settle them.
It Required the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Rights Act to actually push the ball down the road to real freedom.
Thanks for the cite. I have never read anything by Judge Bork but know he was unfairly treated by Democrats for his confirmation to SCOTUS.
Bork may have been influenced by Jesuit philospher Fr John Courtney Murray, SJ. I have cited Fr Murray’s work many times on here, and perhaps it would interest you. He died in 1967. Fr Murray blamed Warren in part but argued the “slouching” (my words) of SCOTUS started with Fred Vinson. He believed the expulsion of natural law during Vinson’s tenure and from legal thinking produced what we have today: post-modernism, relativism, self-referrentialism, a lack of consensus in our nation. His writing was prescient. Fr Murray was considered an expert on Catholicism and religious pluralism in the West, and served as a consultant of the LBJ White House during Vietnam War. Fr Murray’s book is available on-line for free. It’s not light reading since it is heavy scholasticism but given your training and age, you might enjoy the challenge. Considering my Jesuit pedigree I post the following:
We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition
JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.
https://library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/Murray/whtt_index
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION: THE CIVILIZATION OF THE PLURALIST SOCIETY
PART ONE: THE AMERICAN PROPOSITION
1. E Pluribus Unum
The American Consensus
2. Civil Unity and Religious Integrity
The Articles of Peace
3. Two Cases for the Public Consensus
Fact or Need
4. The Origins and Authority of the Public Consensus
A Study of the Growing End
5. Creeds at War Intelligibly
Pluralism and the University
PART TWO: FOUR UNFINISHED ARGUMENTS
6. Is It Justice?
The School Question Today
7. Should There Be a Law?
The Question of Censorship
8. Is It Basket Weaving?
The Question of Christianity and Human Values
9. Are There Two or One?
The Question of the Future of Freedom
PART THREE: THE USES OF DOCTRINE
10. Doctrine and Policy in Communist Imperialism
The Problem of Security and Risk
11. The Uses of a Doctrine on the Uses of Force
War as a Moral Problem
12. The Doctrine is Dead
The Problem of the Moral Vacuum
13. The Doctrine Lives
The Eternal Return of Natural Law
That was me
Me was that?
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
* hear, hear!
@Estovir
Thank you. Excellent. More succinctly, we should not *need* judges to settle the majority of our affairs. The relative prosperity and peace of the last 30 years (prior to the second Obama term and beyond) created an entire generation of privileged monsters. Privilege does NOT erase equality.
That is about to come back down to earth in real time reality IMO. It begins with: commit a crime, you go to jail. Period. Because the dems finally lost their stranglehold on our Congress (due entirely, 100% to their own insanity), we can perhaps move forward with actual sanity, and make a society that works for all of us. Oh, the irony, ‘village’ touting Hillary and her ilk. 🙄
The rule of law…
https://x.com/JaiShreeRam90/status/1854551786268340669
🙂
J
My mother in law entered illegally, she lives at Street 4, Number 47 D, New York, right behind the green apartment, the gate is always open, she don’t have any dogs either, St. 4 #47 apt d, if she gets deported how my life would be, why, St. 4 #47 Apt D, I hope nothing bad happens to her!
Oh, the horror, this poor guy!
Just FWIW, probably the best concession speech ever:
Wow! Trump got lucky.
Biden is probably having a post-election-loss dementia dream, thinking, “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him!’”
President Ding-a-Ling is speaking. The ASL interpreter is hilarious! Why do they still have them, when we now have closed captioning???
because closed captioning is not accurate, while ASL interpreters are more useful.
It’s funny when Turley does his Spike the football dance. Or tries to. The thing he blatantly ignores in this push piece is that he’s advocating court packing…, while lauding the fact trump could name seven justices, which is the definition of court packing…
And he also harkens back to the supposed “red line” timing acceptable for new nominees…, something McConnell egregiously ignored.
Another funny thing is that this packed court in its immunity decision laid the groundwork for an authoritarian president to bypass all of this. For instance, if all you magats who like to say Biden is authoritarian actually weren’t so full of shite you’d realize if he actually were what he’d do right now is assassinate at least 3 conservative judges tomorrow and then run new nominees in during the next couple months and ‘justify’ it on national security threat rationale.
But rather than actually being authoritarian he’s going to uphold ‘tradition’ and leave it up to intelligence to treat the incoming administration as the insurgency it is. Hell, they might even have to shift into counter terrorism depending on how active the project 25 ass clowns get.
Your bitter tears are sweet to the good people of this blog.
Glad I can entertain you dumb f#$KS so easily. Baahahahahahahaha
As you sink further into despair . . .
OldManFromKS,
They are such sad, little people. Rather then lose gracefully, they continue to rant and rave their TDS.
Hey Genius, getting to name 7 Justices due to there being seven VACANCIES during your tenure is not Court packing. There is dumb, and then there is this level of dumb.
Or maybe this Anonymous is one of the many people getting PAID by the Harris campaign the way that Beyonce’ and Lizzo were paid.
It is if at least two of those seats were stolen you intractable moron.
Ooooh, “intractable.” Having a big vocabulary day, are we?
@Anonymous (the good one)
I use that word in my comments frequently, pretty sure they stole it from me. 😂
If you’re talking about Gorsuch and Barrett, only one seat could be criticized for Mitch McConnell’s invoking of “the Biden rule”. Making an appointment in the last year before the next Presidential election?….it can’t be both wrong and right.
Sure it can. The Biden Rule applies to when the Presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties. Does not apply when they are controlled but the same party. Many people forget that part.
Making an appointment in the last year before the next Presidential election?….it can’t be both wrong and right.
There’s your ignorance on public display, pbinca.
NO president in the entire history of our nation, faced with a SCOTUS vacancy in the last year of their term has NOT made a nomination to the court. Not one of them.
Furthermore, it wasn’t “the Biden rule”. It was long existing precedent for what happens to the nominees of a lame duck president of either party, when Congress is controlled by the other party.
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. You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was president to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year was approved by a Senate of a different party.
A reminder to you as one of the gullible fools sucked in by Obama and his bleating and whining that Merrick Garland wasn’t put on SCOTUS. It’s all precedent and historical norms. Including before Obama, when Bush’s final nominees as a lame duck president making a nomination to an opposition Congress were blocked by then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy.
I would post that you embarrass and humiliate yourself yet again – but clearly, you aren’t handicapped by the capacity to feel either embarrassment or humiliation.
FDR did appoint 7 justices eventually and was elected 4 times but after his death, a constitutional amendment limited the president to 2 terms. Passed by 2/3 of the House and Senate made up heavily of democrats and then 3/4 of the states. I think the Democrats and Republicans of that time were a bite wiser than many in congress now
This is what the communists do repeatedly—re-“interpret” the Constitution and make stuff up. Of course, the President nominates any and all candidates for the Supreme Court upon vacancies as they occur. The communists previously re”interpreted” the Constitution to include each and every principal of the Communist Manifesto when the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly preclude all of them. The United States and Donald J. Trump have a LOT of work to do to extirpate communism comprehensively from America and remake it as truly the Land of the Free.
which is the definition of court packing…
🤔
court-packing
noun
court-pack·ing ˈkȯrt-ˌpa-kiŋ
variants or less commonly court packing
: the act or practice of packing (see pack entry 3 sense 1) a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/court-packing
Take your meds then take a nap.
I think you forgot that official acts are not immune to impeachments.
A bit of an overlook, don’t you think
I think we should take the libs up on court packing and add 4 conservatives forthwith
OT
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS SMOKING A FINE CUBAN CIGAR AND SMILING DOWN ON AMERICA!
* Before I leapt through the Stargate, landed in an oak tree, climbed down onto the roof of a chic-filet and slid down a drain pipe, Rush Limbaugh was a joke.
Gutfeld takes Kamala jokes to a new level. Here are about a dozen reactions by Harris-endorsing public figures to Kamala’s loss. Example: Nancy Pelosi was so upset her eyebrows moved to Canada.
https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1854361800315109454
I had an idea! Can we count illegal aliens as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of dividing House Representatives among the states??? That isn’t a bad idea. The first time it was done, it was the very nice, non-slave-holding Northerners who wanted it.
* Only citizens should be counted. Gives people a REASON to be a citizen and documented. There’s no check on it. Just make them up.
* Well, Floyd, what you say has truth in it. Only citizens should be counted as there are no slaves now, just citizens.
Odd no one knows that, isn’t it?
Only citizens should be counted as there are no slaves now, just citizens. Odd no one knows that, isn’t it?
Not odd in the slightest that an Anonymous commie would claim the census doesn’t count them and their 20+ million Illegal Alien fiends.
It would be amusing for a GOP Congress to introduce a court packing law and ask all the Dems who loved the idea when they thought they would have the President to vote for it now.
Nit-pick: the saying is “a switch in time” not “a shift in time.” Switch rhymes with stitch and so it is more clever that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
Do you remember the Isaac Asimov feghoot (Yes, feghoot is a real word!) short story, A Loint of Paw? Here it is, in full! It is even on topic for a legal blog!
———-
A Loint of Paw, by Isaac Asimov
There was no question that Montie Stein had, through clever fraud, stolen better than $100,000. There was also no question that he was apprehended one day after the statute of limitations had expired.
It was his manner of avoiding arrest during that interval that brought on the epoch-making case of the State of New York v. Montgomery Harlow Stein, with all its consequences. It introduced law to the fourth dimension.
For, you see, after having committed the fraud and possessed himself of the hundred grand plus, Stein had calmly entered a time machine, of which he was in illegal possession, and set the controls for seven years and one day in the future.
Stein’s lawyers put it simply. Hiding in time was not fundamentally different from hiding in space. If the forces of law had not uncovered Stein in the seven-year interval, that was their hard luck.
The district attorney pointed out that the statute of limitations was not intended to be a game between the law and the criminal. It was a merciful measure designed to protect a culprit from indefinitely prolonged fear of arrest. For certain crimes, a defined period of apprehension – so to speak – was considered punishment enough. But Stein, the D.A. insisted, had not experienced any period of apprehension at all.
Stein’s lawyer remained unmoved. The law said nothing about measuring the extent of a culprit’s fear and anguish. It simply set a time limit.
The D.A. said that Stein had not lived through the limit.
Defense said that Stein was seven years older now than at the time of the crime and had therefore lived through the limit.
The D.A. challenged the statement, and the defense produced Stein’s birth certificate. He was born in 2973. At the time of the crime, 3004, he was thirty-one. Now, in 3011, he was thirty-eight.
The D.A. shouted that Stein was not physiologically thirty-eight, but thirty-one.
Defense pointed out freezingly that the law, once the individual was granted to be mentally competent, recognized solely chronological age, which could be obtained only by subtracting the date of birth from the date of now.
The D.A., growing impassioned, swore that if Stein were allowed to go free, half the laws on the books would be useless.
Then change the laws, said the defense, to take time travel into account; but until the laws are changed, let them be enforced as written.
Judge Neville Preston took a week to consider and then handed down his decision. It was a turning point in the history of law. It was almost a pity, then, that some people suspect Judge Preston to have been swayed in his way of thinking by the irresistible impulse to phrase his decision as he did. For that decision, in full, was: “A niche in time saves Stein.”
https://cyborgink.com/2022/12/02/a-loint-of-paw-isaac-asimov-1957/
Haha, good one, thanks Floyd. Funny I was just thinking the “shift in time” terminology used by Professor Turley sounds like a time travel book or movie.
As for the story, I had not heard of it before. I was half expecting that when defense counsel said “until the laws are changed, let them be enforced as written,” the DA would somehow travel back in time and lobby for a change in the law, which would then be applied at the present time.
Great Idea! Glad you liked the story!
* truly great, Floyd! A loint of paw . Clearly!
I am glad you liked it. It was in an old Isaac Asimov paperback full of his short stories. I read it way back when I was a young snipperwhapper. Trust me, whapping snippers is hard work!
I truly miss Isaac Asimov. I thought I had read them all but certainly missed that one. How appropriate and humorous also.
I am glad you liked it. The book was Asimov’s Mysteries –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov%27s_Mysteries
The Republicans should (bluff, bluff) take the Democrat’s advice to pack the Supreme Court and (bluff, bluff) move to add an additional five to seven Justices while Trump is President and Republicans have Senate majority. Seeing Democrats and progressives spin out of control at this prospect would be hilariously entertaining especially when they realize what goes around comes around. It may be a teaching moment that packing the Court would be a very, very bad idea for the Supreme Court of United States.
The pubs should reduce the court to one justice and simply get a new guy whenever they have these majorities, forever.
That was Turley’s plan during the Clinton admistration.
I honestly think the death knell’s been rung on the radical left. There’s no reason for any to employ Harvard grads; there’s no reason for any to attend. Surely there must exist some Gen Zers every bit as concerned about their futures as we are, who will not accept the cultural apoptosis prescribed by mindless others? Also this: Historically speaking, “freedom,” is the young man’s cry.
Actually, a truly radical left will be just getting up to speed as the the center left has proven it can’t withstand foreign disinformation campaigns.
You guys pissed your pants over the George Floyd demonstrations. Buckle up.
* a counterfeiter, drug pusher, pimp and armed robber. Floyd brought them drugs to ease their pain. He brought them death when the pain was too much. Floyd actually overdosed several times.
Chauvin mistreated a dying man. So it is..
@Anonymous
Can’t tell which one you are from the comment, but with all of the legal reforms (really: CA recalling people and passing crime laws is HUGE), and the real possibility of cowardly children going to actual prison for acting out and their parents not being able to intervene, I think we will see a great deal less of this, there will be no ‘Summer of Love’ 2.0. Not this time. We have all had enough.
Very likely the covid lockdowns (there are now a majority of Republican governors) and all that they precipitated would have been plenty, but there was oh so much more from these miscreants. The era of Marxist seepage is over.
It will be very, very interesting to see what happens with our universities in the coming years. Perhaps in 2028 a college degree will once again be worth more than the paper it is printed on. And I remind everyone, I am a lifelong independent who voted a straight red ticket, and between my wife and I we have six of these pieces of paper. 🤷🏻♂️ I am not particularly attached to any symbolic meaning regarding them, nor am I nostalgic for an alma mater that is wholly irrelevant in my later life.
* Freedom —> stay out of my wallet, King Charles!
There are many kinds of freedom. To name 3: life, liberty (itself) and happiness.
Is an American calling for the rejection of the Constitution analogous to a Christian calling for the rejection of the Bible?
Or someone who practices Judaism calling for the rejection of the Torah? Excellent point, Senior Jayhawk (or is it Wildcat?)
“Is an American calling for the rejection of the Constitution analogous to a Christian calling for the rejection of the Bible?”
Arguing for “secular excommunication” e.g, Phillip Nolan?
The current Court can assist in returning law schools to a less biased position by hiring law clerks from law firms and schools less infected with leftist, revisionist, anti-Constitutional bias. Not all brilliant legal minds, as you yourself know, are only found at Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. To putative commenters to my post, observe that I wrote “less” infected. Gleaning honest legal scholars from the anti-Constitutional haystacks will be like finding the proverbial needle, but with diligence and effort, it can be done.
That’s one good idea. Another would be to abolish the unconstitutional Dept Education and, along with it, all Federal funding and support of colleges and universities, both direct and indirect. That in turn will remove one of the largest incentives for the Marxist propaganda being misconstrued as legal opinion at the Ivy League law schools.
“Anonymous” got in early today with hot bitter tears of rage that Americans rejected the shrieks of “Treason” (never heard that when we found that Obama created and used their “Russia Dossier” to first tilt the 2016 election and then destroy the Trump presidency), and the majority of Americans instead voted to elect Trump. Including the famous Blue Wall – every brick of it.
Can Trump try and dry all the hot bitter tears of rage following the election by reaching out to the losers in a bipartisan manner? Exactly like Obama and Biden did – act as they did as president for all Americans after winning their elections?
Example: Professor Turley mentioned the Soviet Democrats eagerness to pack the court immediately after the election. Should Trump publicly ask Democrat senators Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse et al if they would feel mollified if Trump packed SCOTUS for them. You want it? You got it!
Current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and others suggesting that America needed two more states added to the country after the election. How about another magnanimous gesture of bipartisanship and Trump adds two more states? Trump gets to pick, of course! Eastern Washington State has felt so divorced from coastal Washington and Seattle that they’ve been pitching to be added to Idaho next door. Eastern California where the working class are congregated around Bakersfield and similar areas feel similarly divorced from their coastal elites in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
So would Democrats be grateful if they got their two new states and two new seats in Congress with the states of East Washington and East California? Sort of like West Virginia…
The Electoral College that they’re so bitter about?
Well, just like their Nirvana of having Elective Abortion Rights as a Constitutional right, a president can’t use the Oval Office to change the EC or make abortion law., Even if Obama lent Trump his phone and his pen and showed him how to use them to “fundamentally change America”. Both require constitutional amendments, which ain’t gonna succeed no matter which party is the government.
BUT, they are right about the EC having problems, and Trump can fix those. The census was so badly done the last time with miscounts that the end result was deep blue states ended up with +5 – +7 additional EC votes. That could change an election!
So as a further magnanimous gesture of reaching across the isle to the losers, Trump can ensure that a PROPER census be done well before the midterm elections. One which ensures that only American citizens and legal immigrants are counted for the purposes of apportioning EC votes – and Congressional seats. It would be a form of rigging elections to hand out House seats to represent and vote for 20+ MILLION Illegal Aliens currently in the United States.
Some have forgotten this, but these criminal Illegal Aliens and overstayed visas aren’t supposed to be in this country – laws specifying that were passed into law by Democrats long before Trump was in office. In fact, Democrats still in politics like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi not too long ago were demanding Illegal Aliens must be deported. Maybe Nancy and Chuck can do a little bipartisan gesture of their own and go back to their prior position?
If Trump did any or all of those things, would that sooth the bitter tears and rage of “Anonymous”, Gigi, Dennis, Sammy, etc?
Or would they think Trump was giving them and their Soviet Democrat party a lesson in FAFO?
Lighteredknot says: When DT became the Repub nominee in 2015, I would allege that Obama (Susan Rice said Obama wanted to be kept in the loop) Biden, CIA, ST Dept, DOJ, FBI, NIA, NSA, et als, began a coup to remove DT and continues down until 11-07-2024. The upper echelons of these acronym institutions should be purged. DT should appoint a new AG who would Set up Tribunals in GITMO and prosecute those alleged criminals. That would not be retribution, but seeking justice. DT from this point forward had best extend every attempt to stay safe ( Not be assassinated) and hire food testers. The Left will be bringing much chaos yet to remove DT. “and other extreme measures of the left”, Professors like Turley and Dershowitz are a breath of fresh air. To see the MSM become so biased is nauseating.
Selah
” CIA, ST Dept, DOJ, FBI, NIA, NSA, et al”
So far as I am concerned, we should get rid of the FBI entirely, the CIA and NSA should be combined, drastically purged from top to bottom, and new, enforceable constraints placed on any domestic operations. I don’t think the purge should necessarily stop below the top tanks of the other orgs, either. The Fedgov rot goes deep. Make every Federal employee write a letter describing what he or she does, and why it is necessary. Limit the letter to 3 pages. If the employee hasn’t made a compelling case in that allotted space, send them packing. A similar concept was lampooned in “Office Space”, but for Fedgov I think it might actually work.
* Fine comment. You make a good point. Yes, it doesn’t work with dishonesty.
Yes, the Left will huff and puff and threaten impotently. The Tribes and Chemerinskys will continue to fulminate their absurdities, but fewer will pay attention, other than to mock them. The Media is fading out. Journalism is dead. The sudden migration of Bezos towards the middle was a sign. All of the Left, including the media, think they are living through a nightmare that is temporary. It is only beginning. All that collegial crap and “reaching across the aisle” have had their day. The day is done. Younger, smarter, and far more ruthless men are about to inherit the Republican Party. Who will counter Vance, DeSantis, Cotton, and the deep bench behind them? Harris? Buttigieg? Stacey Abrams? Walz? The Left will look back wistfully at the second Trump administration.
I’d love to see Walz2028. Or Newsom2028. Shining stars of the Dem firmament.