Below is my column in the Hill on moments of honesty after the recent Democratic victories in California, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York. In the euphoria that followed, Democratic politicians and pundits admitted that they intend to pursue radical changes, including packing the Supreme Court, once they retake power.
Here is the column:
“In vino veritas.” The Roman proverb — “In wine, there is truth” — reflects the fact that people are often at their most honest when they’ve had a few.
Elections can have the same effect for some to become drunk on even the prospect of power. Partisans can blurt out their inner thoughts with shocking frankness.
That was the case this week as Democratic luminaries discussed plans to retake power and then fundamentally change the constitutional system to guarantee they will never have to give it up again.
It turns out that winning votes in three blue states and a blue city in an off-year election can be quite intoxicating. It is easy to dismiss it as the talk of chest-thumping, bar-room blowhards about whom they were going to thump. But there is a truth in the bravado.
Citing election results, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) seemed to bounce with elation in declaring that “the Democratic Party looks powerful for the first time all year.” In a moment of remarkable candor, Murphy explained his desire to continue the shutdown, admitting deep concerns about the midterm elections if Democrats reopen the government.
It is the same logic as randomly shoving people at a bar to impress one’s date.
Of course, extending the shutdown will harm millions and cost billions. But there are more lasting plans afoot if some of these partisans are to be believed.
Others were proclaiming their plans not only to retake power but never to lose it again. That means weakening the greatest single check on power: the Supreme Court. The talk of court-packing had died down after Democrats lost both houses of Congress and the White House. Now, after the elections last week, such talk is back with a vengeance.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder was telling anyone who would listen this week, suggesting that once Democrats take control, they intend to keep it permanently.
Holder explained on a podcast: “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power, if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.” When asked about the priority in wielding that power, Holder declared that the court was hopelessly broken and had to be fundamentally changed: “It’s something that has to be, I think, a part of the national conversation in ‘26 and in ‘28, ‘What are we going to do about the Supreme Court?’”
In other words, the court, as we know it, has got to go. While some on the left are questioning the very need for a Supreme Court or calling for it to be simply defied or “dissolved,” others want it to be stacked with political activists, like some state supreme courts are.
The problem has long been the focus of liberal academics planning for sweeping changes to the system. Many have called for the elimination of the Senate filibuster to force through measures making Puerto Rico and D.C. states with the addition of four new senators. Others want election and immigration “reforms” viewed as favoring Democratic campaigns.
That, however, leads them back to the inconvenient Supreme Court.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
This week, Democratic strategist James Carville laid out the step-by-step process of how the pack-to-power plan would work.
“I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” he said. “A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”
Carville returned to explain that court-packing will now be as inevitable as Democrats taking power. “That’s going to happen to you,” he said. “They’re going to win. They’re going to do some blue ribbon panel of distinguished jurists, and they are going to recommend 13, and a Democratic Senate and House is going to pass it, and the Democratic president is going to sign it, because they have to do an intervention so we can have a Supreme Court that the American people trust again.”
So, with the legislative and executive branches in their hands, some Democrats are planning to decapitate the judicial branch — just in time for the 250th anniversary of our revolution.
After all, as Holder explained, it is all about “the acquisition and the use of power.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Trump is the perfect pretext for such Dem-Socialist power moves, much of this was floated during and after Trump 1.0 as well. Pondering a Romney-type presidency we’d have 90% of the same hateful, accusatory, name-calling by media and Dems, but none of the buy-in by the public or enthusiasm of Dem-Left voters and all the while an apologetic, ineffectual patrician at the helm. Is this really an ideological war, or simply a political fight over the best route to conduct business and enhance power for the powerful? Populists and grassroots field workers in both parties are primarily fuel for the engines of differing business models, both of which ultimately serve the wealthiest and most powerful. At this time, the Trump template overall appears far less authoritarian and more pro-nationalistic than the alternative offered by the rising Neo-Left Democrats who’ve long asserted a far more intrusive oversight, intrusion, and micromanagement of one’s personal life even while selling deregulation on norms, destigmatizing and mainstreaming all conduct and policy that furthers their aims, including packing SCOTUS. Should Dems get their Trifecta, they’d need to go hard and fast as zeal begins to cool after a time and even starry-eyed media loses their awe.
Professor Turley’s exaggerated and alarmist narrative omits a certain truth. Republicans have been packing the courts for years at the federal level. They also sought to pack the Supreme Court with a conservative majority when they withheld for nearly a year Obama’s nominee when Ginsburg died.
Democrats, if they regain significant majorities in both houses they can expand the number of seats in the court to balance the conservative lean of the court. It’s perfectly constitutional.
Republicans have been very aggressive with their Project 2025 agenda and the democrats are slowly adopting the same tactics conservatives have been using for years. Republicans are already facing losses of voter confidence and Trump’s poor handling of the economy is undermining their agenda. History is not on the Republicans’ side.
“Republicans have been packing the courts for years at the federal level.” And Democrats have not? Is that what you’re implying?
One problem you fail, Project 2025 was issued in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation. Its just another policy paper issued by politicians (democrats too) to gain notoriety in their respective parties, a resume, people looking for jobs, and an intellectual exercise, if you will. And BTW it does not explicitly detail plans for packing the courts.
“These are wild and whirling words, my lord.” The last election was perfectly predictable. I knew the Democrats would sweep these blue states. Most conservative pundits suspected it would happen.
I know something else that is predictable: the more you guys keep deluding yourself about what people think outside of your declining coastal metros, the more you’ll get clobbered in 2028. The Democrats are still in the minority, and that is a growing problem for Democrats.
In other words, just keep saying out loud what you’re thinking. I don’t mind.
Da?
1. Republicans have not been “packing the courts for years”. According to Pew, “Overall, Democratic presidents appointed 60% of all active judges at the district court level, while Republican chief executives appointed the remaining 40%. The appeals courts are nearly evenly divided between appointees of Democratic and Republican presidents (49% vs. 51%), while the Supreme Court has twice as many appointees of GOP as Democratic presidents (six vs. three).”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/09/how-biden-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20Democratic%20presidents%20appointed%2060,three).
2. After Scalia died, not Ginsberg as you falsely assert, Obama nominated a liberal justice to replace the conservative Scalia. McConnell, as Senate Majority Leader who has the Constitutional authority to decide what issues the Senate will take up, decided not to hold confirmation hearings until after the election. It was a bonehead move. None of the “smart set” believed at the time that Trump would win. And if Hillary won, she was under no obligation to re-nominate Garland. She likely would have nominated someone even worse ideologically. Thankfully, the “smart set” were wrong and Trump won.
3. Going back further, it was Democrats who led the opposition of Bork to SCOTUS, despite the fact he had been unanimously confirmed by the Senate to the DC Appeals Court. It was Democrat Senators, egged on by academics like Tribe and Wasserman, who held GWB’s nominees up in committee refusing to allow votes on them. Conservatives called it a “blockade”. A memo leaked that Dick Durbin did not want one of GWB’s nominees, Miguel Estrada, confirmed. Not because he was not qualified, but because he is Hispanic. You see, Republicans had nominated the first woman with O’Connor and Durbin and other Democrats did not want Republicans to name the first Hispanic to SCOTUS. Democrats delayed the vote on Estrada for so long he ultimately withdrew his name from consideration. Some have suggested his wife’s suicide may have been related to the stress they were under caused by Democrat game playing.
I never can tell if your dishonest hackery is intentional or you just type up whatever you wish were true and pass it off as factual hoping nobody will bother to notice or correct it.
TDS is a terrible disease. Thanks for providing another example for us.
How is the party of sanity packing the court?
That’s not what “packing the court” means. Filling vacancies with people who agree with your ideology is not “packing”. “Packing the court” specifically refers to the process of increasing the total size of the court, then filling all of those new vacancies all at once, rather than naturally over time. For instance, the current supreme court has 9 members. Increasing it to 13, then appointing 4 new people that align with your ideology all at once is what is referred to as “packing the court”.
The problem with “packing the court”, of course, is that it invites retaliation. If the other party gains power, they will just repeat the process, increasing the court from 13 to 19 and appointing 6 new members of that party. You only pack the court if you believe you can use it to create a permanent ruling party. The fact that they are even contemplating that is frightening for the republic.
1. Republicans have not been packing any courts. They have been filling vacancies as they occur — that is not packing.
2. When Scalia’s seat fell vacant in 2012, the senate was under no obligation to consider Garland’s nomination. As McConnell pointed out at the time, there was no precedent of a senate considering, in a presidential election year, a supreme court nomination by a president of the opposite party. So the senate had every right to keep the seat open for the incoming president.
Contrary to Anonymous of 9:43 AM, this was not a boneheaded move on McConnell’s part, it was actually one of the best things he did in his career. There was every prospect at the time of a Republican (not necessarily Trump) being elected, so it made perfect sense to hold the seat open for that person to fill. Had Clinton won in November, it would have made sense for the senate to confirm Garland in the lame duck session, but then 0bama would probably have withdrawn his nomination to hold it open for Clinton to fill. That’s how it works.
3. You admit that the Democrats plan to expand the court to appoint four new justices of their liking to outvote the existing conservative justices. THAT IS PACKING. That’s what packing means. And yes, it’s constitutional; but it’s odious. Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court was equally constitutional, and equally odious, which is why the backlash was so strong that he didn’t go through with it. (And no, the “switch in time that saved nine” is a complete myth. It never happened. It was just his excuse to save face after backing down.)
4. There is nothing wrong with Project 2025, nothing to be ashamed of, but it’s not Trump’s paper. It’s just proposals that Heritage has made to Trump, advice that he is free to pick and choose from, just like anyone who offers free advice to any president. He had nothing to do with preparing it, and is in no way committed to it. If he likes any of the advice he accepts it, if he doesn’t like any of it he rejects it.
Professor Turley’s exaggerated and alarmist narrative omits a certain truth.
He’s baaaaccckkkk: BBBUTTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!!
very clear the democrats should be jailed by the 1000’s for their crimes
Elections need to be valid….1 day, in person, with ID
End all Federal Aid going to Democrat cities, states, non-profits and colleges, STOP rewarding them for FAILURE!
I want the Democrat Party Abolished!
What crimes?
GREAT IDEA!!
This brings to mind two the comment, one attributed to Mao about where the ultimate power resides and the other attributed to John Quincy Adams that most democracies commit suicide after 250 years.
If Adams ever said that, can’t be, there were no democracies on the planet is his time.
It was John Adams, not John Quincy, and the quote is “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” No mention of 250 years, which Adams would have regarded as extraordinarily long. It’s in his letters to John Taylor.
These pronouncements are not new. I suspect that everybody who reads this column knows that as well as just keeping up with the news. I think these democrats are whistling in the wind if they think people will just take such actions in stride and do nothing in response to these desires and/or actions. Especially not ever relinquishing power. Are these democrats listening to themselves.
People stormed the capitol just on the thought that the election of 2020 was tainted. I fear that there would be far worse should such a scenario unfold as described today.
I suspect that there would be massive violence and then all bets are off. I think these democrats should think of the other possibility and consider what would happen to them if they lost under such a scenario and the violence overwhelmed them. The retribution would be awful and would likely be executions and not subpoenas.
They are not thinking lucidly. Their power resides on the upper east coast annd the west coast and is split and the opposing power controls the heartland except for isolated cities.
I think these democrats need to consider their tactical situation if the worst happens. It is not good.
What is amazing to me is that the Dems think that packing the court to 13 will be the end of it. Republicans will be in control someday and then the court will be increased to 17.
Not necessarily correct. At some point, it will truly become a uniparty, like communism. Look no further than California for what out future might look like if the rats get their way. There is a point of no return, and now may be our last best hope. Time to nuke the filibuster and ran President Trumps agenda through over the next year. Also, pass laws preventing what the dims (rats) want to accomplish. There has never been a better time than the present.
Once you nuke the filibuster it’s gone, and can never be brought back. When the Dems next hold the senate you’ll miss it, just as the Dems now miss the filibuster on nominations, and regret having blown it up.
And you CAN’T make laws preventing what they are threatening. There is no law you can make that a Democrat Party that controls both houses and the presidency can’t amend or repeal. If you want to do something they can’t easily undo you have to amend the constitution; that way they would have to amend it back. And constitutional amendments are basically impossible to pass without bipartisan support.
The way to prevent this is by continuing to win elections. Hopefully, what’s left of the GOP can get its act together and finds good candidates for 26 & 28 and good policies. There are loads of issues that they can run on
Issues? Name them. If If find one I like, I’ll run.
When the shutdown is over, hopefully soon, President Trump needs to do a brief Oval Office primetime address to the American people, exposing the Democrats for trying to aid their insurance company pals who happen to bankroll a lot of politicians. Trump would do well to explain the inner workings of “Obamacare” and how Obama and the Democrats intentionally misled Americans to believe claims that were known to be false: e.g., you can keep your doc; the plans will be affordable; you can continue your private insurance, etc. Obama and his party used these lies to garner public support for a program to aid insurance companies at taxpayers’ expense.
Trump is not a politician by trade but a businessman who understands the corporate world better than any politician does. In his address to the nation, Trump should say exactly what is wrong with Obamacare and why prices only go up, contrary to what Obama promised. Then, he should agree to undertake a revamping of the nation’s healthcare with plans that first and foremost address and eliminate the estimated $100 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse at HHS. RFK Jr., a Democrat, will have a large part of the task that Trump will personally oversee to ensure that good business practices are adhered to in government-run programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and that the fraudsters ripping off the government with Obamacare are caught and prosecuted. He might begin by “DOGEing” HHS and its programs and exposing some of the most egregious violations (and violators).
Thus far, the Republicans in the House and Senate have done a poor job of educating Americans about the fraudulent nature of the Democrats’ claims. Regaining or extending subsidies for Obamacare does not put money in the pockets of Obamacare recipients but, instead, in the pockets of the already deepening pockets of the insurance companies that extort government funding for the purpose of enriching themselves and returning some of it in the form of political campaign donations to, yes, Republicans and Democrats alike. As Mario Puzo observed in The Godfather, buying both sides guarantees neither will ever rat on the other and both will do what they’re paid to do.
Good one jjc. Wish we had more insightful comments like that here.
Turley’s right — court-packing isn’t reform, it’s revenge dressed in robes. It’s what happens when one party decides the problem isn’t its arguments but the referees. Once the judiciary is reshaped to deliver political outcomes rather than constitutional ones, the separation of powers collapses. What Holder calls “the acquisition and use of power,” the Framers called tyranny.
If Democrats move forward with this, it won’t “restore trust,” it will permanently fracture it. The Founders designed the Court as ballast against the tempests of politics, not as another sail to catch partisan wind. You can’t fix a broken compass by redrawing the map — and you can’t save the Republic by dismantling the branch meant to keep it honest.
@Olly
That’s basically it, IMO – if the dems ever have majority power ever again, our separation of powers is dead, likely for good.
Anyone being snide about Schumer getting primaried has not considered the implications of the fact that the likes of AOC or Mandani don’t have less ethics, they have ZERO ethics (nor do they possess intelligence or wisdom). There is no ‘dem party’ and things could get real ugly, real quick.
Excellent point James. It’s interesting — when your only principle is power, “separation of powers” takes on a whole new meaning. Their version isn’t about balancing government; it’s about separating Republicans from ever having it again.
OLLY,
“Their version isn’t about balancing government; it’s about separating Republicans from ever having it again.”
And that is their end goal: One party rule. Their party. And the funny thing is they have been very vocal about it since Trump won in 2016. To hear and read them say these words, while shocking, is not surprising. When they tell you they are for totalitarian rule, their rule, believe them.
That’s exactly right, Upstate. In my study of the Declaration’s grievances, Jefferson’s repeated phrase “He has…” points not just to a king, but to the actions that made him a tyrant. The name was incidental — the behavior was the indictment.
Every abuse Jefferson listed was about power exercised without consent, law twisted for political ends, and justice denied to preserve control. Tyranny isn’t defined by who commits it, but by what’s done in its name. We’re seeing the same pattern now — only this time, it isn’t a crown on one head; it’s spread across an entire political party.
“It is the same the logic as randomly shoving people at a bar to impress one’s date.”
In my younger, single, days I frequented quite a number of local bars and clubs, some of them quite rowdy by nature. My observation is that the behavior that Turley cited quite often resulted in the bully’s date leaving the bar with someone else. Let’s fervently hope that my analogy proves to be true for upcoming elections.
If we had anything like an equitable system of justice, Eric Holder would have been making those statements while dressed in an inmate’s uniform from the interview room of a Federal penitentiary, after his arrest, indictment, trial, and conviction for his complicity in the Fast and Furious debacle.
Equitable? As in a white system for whites, a black system for blacks?
Don’t forget, only Kristen Sinema and Joe Manchin stopped Democrats from repealing the filibuster. Democrats effectively kicked them out of the party for doing so. There is no doubt they will repeal it, stack SCOTUS, add DC and Puerto Rico as states, and give voting rights to all of the tens of millions of illegals they imported.
It boggles my mind that anybody, let alone half the country, supports these ideas that will destroy the country.
As for Carville, he also wants Trump “collaborators” to forcibly have their heads shaved, made to wear orange pajamas, then marched down Pennsylvania Avenue so the public can spit on them. Al Hunt, who once at least pretended to be a decent man when he was at the Wall Street Journal, agrees with him. I believe the reason why Carville and Hunt constantly spew their hateful rhetoric is to provoke another Democrat lunatic to assassinate Trump and others who openly criticize the Democrat Party. What other purpose does that kind of hateful rhetoric serve?
“As for Carville, he also wants Trump “collaborators…” Carville never said that. Making up lies does not further your argument.
As for that hateful rhetoric, the republicans sure do know when and where to use to attack liberals, including SCOTUS. Look a Trumps insane rants.
For crying out loud, Carville did say it, I heard it and it is true you lying partisan hack.
You heard it? Prove it.
Of course he said it. It’s on video. Denying it makes you either uninformed or a liar. Pick one.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/10/22/carville_when_this_nightmare_ends_in_2029_trump_collaborators_should_be_publicly_shamed_and_spit_on.html
A video is not proof. You got the transcript?
Rather than be honest and admit you were unaware of Carville’s despicable comments you chose to be dishonest and pretend the video is inauthentic. In other words, you’ve proven yourself to be a liar. We must conclude, then, that you were aware of Carville’s disgusting comments all along but wanted to gaslight others and cast doubt on my veracity.
You have certainly found the correct political party – the Democrats – to represent your values of lying and dishonesty.
Liar? Dishonest? You got proof what was going on in anon’s mind? You have veracity? Surely you jest.
So, in your mind, a video can be doctored and therefore is not proof, but a text transcript that can be edited with microsoft notepad would be proof?
Who said anything about edited transcripts? So you’re saying all transcripts are fraudulent? A transcript of a video is fraudulent?
All transcripts are suspect unless they were prepared by Grok.
“You know what we do with collaborators? I think these corporations — my fantasy dream is that this nightmare ends in 2029, and I think we ought to have radical things — I think they all ought to have their heads shaven, they should be put in orange pajamas, and they should be marched down Pennsylvania Avenue, and the public should be invited to spit on them. The universities, the corporations, the law forms, all of these collaborators should be shaved, pajamaed, and spit on.”
— James Carville, Politics War Room,
https://www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds/videos/james-carville-makes-inflammatory-remarks-suggesting-trump-supporters-should-hav/798550143051209/
The video is doctored.
“As for Carville, he also wants ”
Carville is either bi-polar, or cynically making sure his bread lands butter-side up (not mutually exclusive options). Right after the 2024 elections he was viciously castigating his fellow Dems and their losing election strategy, and making some statements in the process that at least superficially sounded reasonable. My guess is that he was sternly warned that if he didn’t immediately resume his role as a Dem attack dog, and help them double-down on that same bogus agenda, he was going to have no role at all (and no income – who would hire such a worthless and venomous @$$c10wn to do anything else? )
Good one. You pays attention to a washed up old fart. What his sort will do for attention.
It’s no secret they would pack the court with judges on the level of Biden’s appointment, Jackson, or worse since the Supreme Court does not require trained, educated, experienced lawyers or judges to sit on the bench they would fill it with the radical members of the Democrat or Socialist party. An Amendment is necessary to keep the Supreme Court safe from this outrageous stupidity.
These people are insane, they are now confirming out loud what many of us have suspected for years, we’ve been correct about everything. Would the Republicans et. al. care to stop resting on their laurels, and right quick?
How is it that only you people can judge others insane? I guess it takes one to know one.
And you just proved it Ano
Proved what exactly?
James,
Well said. What else do you call it when when they lose in an election, they declare “Democracy is dying!” Now in their drunken state, their insanity shines through as they plot and plan to rig the system for a one party rule: Them. And they call that democracy. Insane is right. We need to point this article by the good professor to anyone and everyone whom will listen to include moderate and traditional Democrats and Independents. They want to end our Constitutional Republic. When they tell you by their own words that they are totalitarians, believe them.
James,
Also of note, we have seen Democrats calling for increased “fight in the streets!” “let your rage fuel you!” hate and rage rhetoric to the point they have normalized it to the point where they would gladly vote for a AG who wished to see his opponent dead and his children dead. These would be the same people who cheered and celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk. These are the same people who wished Trump’s attempted assassination shooter was a better shot. And since his first election, they have been calling out for all kinds of outlandish things, like packing the court. The good professor has been pointing all these instances of unhinged hate and rage rhetoric, examples of unhinged violence, vandalism and disorderly conduct on college campuses directed at conservatives and now where unhinged leftist Democrats are openly plotting and planning on how to ensure they and only they will win elections. One party rule.
These are the same people protesting “no kings”, saying they have to “save Democracy” or calling Republican fascists, all the while not looking in the mirror…..🙄
I’ve seen the comments on this blog where you people call liberals fascists, sickos, morons, stupid, every nasty insult under the sun. Do you ever look in the mirror?
Ano
liberals fascists, sickos, morons, stupid, every nasty insult under the sun. Do you ever look in the mirror?
Do you? Heck you libs can’t even tell us what a women is.
More proof of unstable conservatives. What is a woman?
Well, if the shoe fits, re: sicko, Transgender ex-lawmaker, first in state’s history, pleads guilty to federal child sex abuse charges
https://www.foxnews.com/us/transgender-ex-lawmaker-first-states-history-pleads-guilty-federal-child-sex-abuse-charges
“These are the same people protesting “no kings”, saying they have to “save Democracy” or calling Republican fascists, all the while not looking in the mirror”
Exactly. I do wonder though, why so many erstwhile reasonable commenters have restricteiden administration? I think that Obama was the epitome of a POTUS acting as monarch.
Dunno what happened there. Should have been:
Exactly. I do wonder though, why so many erstwhile reasonable commenters have restricted their “no kings” rebuttal to referencing the Biden administration? I think that Obama was the epitome of a POTUS acting as monarch.
“That was the case this week as Democratic luminaries discussed plans to retake power and then fundamentally change the constitutional system to guarantee they will never have to give it up again.”
That has been the plan since the defeated ‘For the People Act’ was tried to be passed.
Federalize the elections with no voter ID, or election integrity controls while the Democrats held power in the Presidency, the Senate and the House, plus Obama had packed the lower courts with liberal judges. Fast track to a one party state, often called a dictatorship.
Thanks for bringing up the “For the People’s Act”, a bill as misnamed as the “Inflation Reduction Act”, that would have ended any chance for free elections forever. We were 2 senators away from it all going away and the Dems got rid of both of these moderates. Fetterman is next.
“Federalize the elections with no voter ID, or election integrity controls while the ….” That’s exactly what Trump wants. “one party state, often called a dictatorship…” or called the Trump presidency.
Wrong all details. Conservatives are for:
Photo ID’s
Paper ballots, no machines
Only US citizens
Cleaning up voter rolls
Strict and limited absentee ballots
Until we have all of the above election results are subject to fraud. France went to paper ballots and same day voting years due to fraud issues with main in voting
Congress should pass a law requiring an amendment to the Constitution to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
Not clear what you’re saying? Add add justices or hold the number, or reduce?
I guess being a republican you want to keep the status quo.
BTW congress can’t an amendment, it has to ratified by the 50 states also. A decades long process.
“. . . ratified by the 50 states also.”
38 not 50.
More importantly, the Constitution is silent on the number of Justices.
No one said all 50 states have to ratify it. So you know, it’s reviewed by the 50 states.
No one said anything about the number of justices in that comment either.
“No one said all 50 states have to ratify it.”
Except for the commenter I replied to, who wrote: “it has to *ratified* by the 50 states also.” (emphasis added, for the hard of reading)
Reading is NOT your strong suit.
No, they want to add liberals they have had the court for 50 years or better now that they lot the majority it must be changed so we control it and you.
Congress can’t make such a law. It would require an amendment.
That point was made in an above comment. Good catch.
The acquisition of permanent 1-party governmental control is, as far as aspirations go, treasonous. It is the equivalent of absolute authoritarianism — the dismantling of widely-distributed people power.
Any political party that covertly plots, or openly pursues such a lock on power should be labelled a Counter-Constitutional Organization (CCO), and legal steps taken to dismantle it. Such illegal pursuits of absolute power need to be thought of as parallel government schemes, such as the Gulenists attempted to do in Turkey, but which was caught and arrested.
The power rests with The People to choose policies and leadership, with free and fair elections occurring on a calendar schedule. Allowing any political party (association) to compete for governing power by means other than
sincere public policy proposals in an open forum is a threat to pluralism and the Constitution. We’re talking about those who plan to win elections not based on giving the public free choice to decide policies and leaders, but instead mickey the electoral apparatus, or game the infospace (dupe the electorate), or game the Judiciary (unelected Judges) toward these effects.
Both major parties, in order to remain legitimate under the Constitution, must refrain from aspirations of unchallengeable control.
There can be no tolerance for “they are trying to obtain absolute power, therefore our party needs absolute power to stop them”. That is exactly how the justification is mounted by the absolutist thinkers. They will couch their pursuit of power as “preserving the Constitution” or “preserving democracy” while steamrollering over its procedural constraints on the concentration of power.
There are elements on both the right and the left who would favor 1-party rule for an indefinite duration.
The parties must now stand up to these elements and marginalize them. If not, We The People who are independent need to be ready to dissolve the party system.
That’s quite a mouthful there anon. When the Constitution was ratified, it did not establish a two party federal government. By 1800 it naturally developed. Adams vs. Jefferson was the spark. Have to say, your crazy rant reeks strongly of fascism.
Any political party that covertly plots, or openly pursues such a lock on power should be labelled a Counter-Constitutional Organization (CCO), and legal steps taken to dismantle it.
There is no such thing. And any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional .
Such illegal pursuits of absolute power need to be thought of as parallel government schemes, such as the Gulenists attempted to do in Turkey, but which was caught and arrested.
Any attempt to arrest people for that would not fly here.
Democrat is the party of fascism. Democrats are authoritarian, through and through.
So says the fascist.
You are a child
Packing the court implies many outcomes. The following are equivalent.
1. One party permanently in power.
2. An effective constitutional convention controlled by one party.
3. Any type of redistribution desired.
4. Organized and legalized financial corruption.
5. The imprisonment of opponents.
6. Cessation of free speech.
Under #5 I would add:
(a) Show trials in Washington presided over by “judges” similar to the January 6 Committee;
(b) Public executions, probably by firing squad, of those opponents convicted under (a).
Why do you think the dems let all these illegals in.
One party rule.
Let them in? Wrong, to see Disney World. Every one has the right to visit it no matter where they come from.
Yeah, and anyone who wants to traipse through your home has a right to enter without permission (so long as they don’t break the dishes).
What does your comment have to do with Disney World?
WRONG. Illegals have no right to just come in as they wish.
That’s why they are illegal
What is an illegal?
You just proved why libs are foolish
Thanks
Yet you can’t answer a simple question.
True, but they don’t have a right to benefits Americans paid for for them. They do not have the right to stop traffic to pray, they do not do that in their own countries it should never be tolerated here. They do not have to right to murder Americans by stealing trucking jobs and o kill people. How many young women must be murdered for your illegals to become hard working citizens? I could go on for an hour but you should get the picture. if you don’t you are not truly American.
Whoa… to much caffeine this morning I guess.
What nonsense. You’re just as crazy as the libs.
“Packing the court implies many outcomes.”
I suspect that such an action might be also break the last straw preventing a real Civil War II form beginning. Apparently that is an outcome that the Dems are too stupid to see, or may actually find welcome. Although, given the distribution of firearms in private hands in the US, I’m uncertain which option would evidence greater stupidity.
Good one, a call to insurrection. Conservatives sure do have itchy trigger fingers.
If that were to happen, an insurrection would be the right response. The USA was founded by insurrection.
gdonaldallen,
Well said. Democrats call it democracy when it is one party rule: Their party.