Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg apparently got the message this week that he cannot hope to win the Democratic nomination without promising radical measures, including the packing of the Supreme Court. After denouncing the current Court as “rogue” for not ruling as the left has demanded, Buttigieg endorsed the plan of Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren to pack the Court to reverse adverse constitutional interpretations.
For years, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority that overturned dozens of long-standing cases. That was not viewed as the work of a rogue court. Yet, even as President Donald Trump attacks this Court for ruling repeatedly against him, liberals are now demanding court packing. As the party becomes more radicalized, any candidate expressing doubts over radical demands like court packing is unlikely to make it out of the primaries.
Accordingly, “Mayor Pete” is reaching for Court-Packing Kool-Aid.
In making his pitch to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition convention, Buttigieg knew that he had to offer some radical bona fides. He decided to offer up the Supreme Court:
“We have to do [something] with the Supreme Court, that is now a rogue Supreme Court. To see them eviscerate the Voting Rights Act is to see them reverse some of the most important progress this country ever made, wiping out Black political representation, but also wiping out part of what actually is great within the complex American story.”
That description is part of a campaign of disinformation about the Court’s recent decision to end racial gerrymandering. The Court reaffirmed that the Voting Rights Act would be used to prevent any intentional racial discrimination. It banned states (almost entirely Democratic states) from engaging in racial discrimination to guarantee election results based on the race of the candidates.
He then thrilled the crowd by promising to pack the Court to guarantee the results that he and they are demanding. Declaring that it is “time to think big,” Buttigieg explained:
“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there have to be nine Supreme Court justices. That one doesn’t even take a constitutional amendment. It just takes a readiness to set up a court that fits this country. We could have 13 seats matching the district structure of the federal judiciary, but also a process that makes it less partisan.”
Buttigieg appears to be referring to the circuit system, not the district court system.
What is most striking is that he promises to reverse decisions on issues like racial gerrymandering by packing the Court, but then says it will make the Court “less partisan.”
The whole point of adding four new justices selected by the Democrats is to create an instant majority to their liking and to reverse past rulings.
Years ago, I wrote an academic piece on the possible expansion of the Supreme Court, but there is a world of difference between that and a court-packing plan. Under my proposal, the court’s expansion would take almost two decades to ensure that no president could pack the court.
Various Democrats have been pledging to not only impeach Trump (and a long list of other figures), but to pack the Supreme Court as soon as they regain power.
James Carville declared, “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F— it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
This Nike School of Constitutional Law is catching on with a wide array of pundits and professors. Just do it.
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.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
At base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the court “defies the will of the people.” Reporter John Haltiwanger insisted that “the court is clearly not representative of the U.S. public. It’s supposed to be the people’s court.”
In reality, the court was never meant to be that. It was meant to be the Constitution’s court, designed to stand against everyone and everything except the Constitution. In a system designed to protect the minority, the court (like the Constitution) is counter-majoritarian in much of what it does.
With the Supreme Court removed as a barrier to the left’s radical agenda, Democrats could indeed fulfill the objectives laid out by figures like Klarman to ensure they never lose power again.
That will make the 2028 election the most consequential election for our constitutional history in decades. The outcome will most immediately decide the fate of an institution that has been a stabilizing force for centuries. Even though this Court has ruled against the Trump Administration on a variety of key issues, the left is still demanding that it either yield to all of their demands or face a hostile takeover.
On our 250th anniversary, these reckless and radical voices remind us that (as Benjamin Franklin warned us) this is our Republic if we can keep it.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Poor Pete. He reminds me of the movie, “On the Waterfront,” when the protagonist announces, “I coulda been a contender.” Except for the facts that he is stupid, incompetent, and devoid of ethics.
“Court-packing” traditionally implies expanding a court solely to override valid constitutional rulings and rubber-stamp a specific president’s agenda. In contrast, the modern calls for reform are a direct response to a court that has already been structurally destabilized. When one party breaks centuries of Senate precedent—such as holding a seat vacant for nearly a year in 2016 and then rushing another through in a matter of days in 2020—legislative rebalancing is not an act of aggression. It is a defense mechanism to restore institutional equilibrium.
The question is do we want a “packed” court or a balanced court? Republicans already “packed” the current court. Democrats want to re-balance it. Should the court consist of an equal number of conservatives and liberals? Would the Mr more fair to both parties?
Turley is a hypocrite. The Rs have spent decades aiming to control the court and Turley said nothing. Now the Ds are doing the same thing and Turley suddenly has a problem.
Also SCOTUS is totally cool with gerrymandering to help whites.
Sally: Yes, each party seeks power in order to implement their agenda. The difference here is that the democrats want to change the rules to win. Oh, and the ruling in the voting rights act essentially said that gerrymandeering can’t Constitutionally be designed to advantage or disadvantage a minority group.
Wrong.
Democrats want to pass laws to ensure one party rule: Theirs.
We have not seen Republicans saying they want to do that.
A packed Court looses all legitimacy and can be safely ignored.
the democrat party needs to be abolished!
They are helping illegal invaders…which is TREASON!
Believe Fascists Democrats when they tell you they want to DESTROY America!
Jail them by the 1000’s…. El Salvador showed what happens when you REMOVE A CORRUPT Government, including corrupt judges!
Murders down 98%, economic stability, improvement for all the NON-Corrupt People!
And yet is the Rs who did the first attempted coup in US history and support the most corrupt administration in US history./
@Sally. Given historical facts. One must assume you are referring to the First Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, the first attempted coup of democracy in US History, The Civil War, and the most corrupt administration in US History, the generally alcoholic Republican Ulysses S. Grant?
It was not a attempted coup.
It was a protest turned into a riot.
Still want to know why there were 274 undercover FBI agents there?
Still want to know why Nanci Pelosi denied additional security on Jan6th?
Then there is this, Bombshell transcripts: Trump urged use of troops to protect Capitol on Jan. 6 , but was rebuffed
“Key lawmaker says interviews prove Pentagon wrongly allowed optics to overwhelm security concerns in lead-up to fateful day. The Pentagon’s top brass did not comply with Trump’s orders because of political concerns and “optics.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/bombshell-transcripts-trump-urged-use-troops-protect-capitol-jan-6-was?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
The original 1789 U.S. Constitution had no gun rights and no women’s rights. So the “Originalist” view is anything but Conservative.
The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to change and adapt to modern circumstances. The 9th Amendment confirms that not every right known to man could be listed by name.
Clarence Thomas’ and Mitch McConnel’s marriages would be prohibited under an “Originalist” view of the U.S. Constitution.
So this is not a “Leftist” view, but recognizing our current radicalism by some members of the court.
President Trump could checkmate these idiots by simply floating the “Court Packing” idea himself. These people would trip all over themselves rushing to the cameras telling people why he can’t do that.
Professor Turley, your column relies on a massive double standard, historical omission, and apocalyptic hyperbole to frame a standard constitutional debate as a “radical takeover.”Here is why your argument fails under scrutiny:
1. You Completely Ignore Recent HistoryYou panic over the idea of changing the Court’s size, yet you completely ignore that Senate Republicans already weaponized the Court’s size for partisan gain. In 2016, they unilaterally shrank the functioning Court to eight seats for nearly a year to block Merrick Garland, only to flip their own rules in 2020 to rush Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation through in days. You cannot cry foul about “structural manipulation” when you completely ignore the manipulation that created the current 6-3 supermajority.
2. Your “Liberal Majority” Claim is Factually WrongYou claim that “for years, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority.” This is legally and historically incorrect. Conservative-appointed justices have held a majority on the Supreme Court since 1970. Past landmark rulings on civil rights and privacy were decided by centrist or moderate-conservative appointees, not a permanent left-wing bloc.
3. You Distort the Voting Rights DebateCharacterizing the gutting of the Voting Rights Act as a simple strike against “racial gerrymandering” is pure disinformation. Mainstream legal scholars across the political spectrum have heavily criticized rulings like Shelby County and Brnovich for systematically dismantling the federal government’s ability to protect minority voters from disenfranchisement. Calling Buttigieg “radical” for wanting to protect the crown jewel of the Civil Rights movement is a massive distortion of voting rights law.
4. You Rely on a Slippery-Slope FallacyYou weave a conspiratorial narrative, using isolated quotes from a single professor to claim that court reform is a sinister plot to ensure Democrats “never lose power again.” This is textbook hyperbole. Changing the number of justices—something Congress has done seven times in American history—does not eliminate elections, nor does it establish a one-party dictatorship.
5. Weaponizing the “Counter-Majoritarian” Defense: You correctly note the Court is designed to be insulated from public opinion. However, you use this to excuse a total collapse in the Court’s institutional legitimacy. When a Court is packed through partisan Senate maneuvers, systematically overturns decades of settled precedent, and issues rulings aligned with dark-money special interests, it is no longer acting as a neutral “constitutional anchor.” It is acting as a tool for partisan minority rule, which is exactly what the Founders warned against.
poor george.
He repeats himself over and over.
___________________________
Professor Turley, your column relies on a massive double standard, historical omission, and apocalyptic hyperbole to frame a standard constitutional debate as a “radical takeover.”Here is why your argument fails under scrutiny:
Just maybe. You should create your own blog and try to compete with Turley.
I can do that on his blog. He’s the free speech fan. Surely he welcomes opposing views, criticism, etc. What do YOU offer besides insults and whining?
Well, Top o’ the Mornin’ to you, X.!!!!! You open this early hour on a peaceful Sunday morning with this message to Professor Turley:
“Professor Turley, your column relies on a massive double standard, historical omission, and apocalyptic … You Completely Ignore Recent History…..Your ‘Liberal Majority’ Claim is Factually Wrong…You Distort the Voting Rights Debate…You Rely on a Slippery-Slope Fallacy…..You weave a conspiratorial narrative, using isolated quotes…..
Never, never did it occur to me that the good professor could be so wrong about things! Never, Never did it occur to me that I should dismiss him in favor of your takes! Starting at least a year ago, I nearly begged you to start your own blog, considering your following and your need to waste time auditing what Turley says.
I’m also feeling very privileged this a.m. to know that I also am a member, right alongside Professor Turley, of the group that you constantly feel the need to audit and correct and set straight in our thinking.
What would we do without you, bro’ and thank you for the elevation and promotion.
yours truly, lin.
Lin, I’m sure your astute observations also lead you to acknowledge the fact that the professor is fair game.
The professor spends nearly every day criticizing or attacking democrats, right? It’s fair game.
You seem to be a bit annoyed given the veiled insult ‘bro’.
Why would I need my own blog? The entire point of Professor Turley’s philosophy is the open discussion of opposing views, ideas, and criticism that leads to a healthy discourse. For some reason you keep missing that point.
I’m fine with you complaining or whining. It’s your prerogative. It’s better to have a lively discourse than a boring echo chamber.
Mornin’ Dustoff: X replies to you, “I can do that on his [Turley’s] blog. He’s the free speech fan.”
X constantly responds to criticism by bringing up free speech.
Of course, X knows that if he started his own blog site, he could say EVEN MORE of whatever he wanted, and he would be completely free of the few restrictions and prohibitions that Turley has on this site. And X would likely draw even MORE of the INTERNATIONAL audience that Turley has, —thus taking away from Turley and reducing this site to ‘has-been’ rubble, once 13 justices rule in X’s favor.
So why do we think that X stays here, with so, so much opportunity out there?!
“Lin”, (Dustoff) you still don’t get it do you. This is a free speech forum. Why create a blog when it’s perfectly fine to post here. Turley’s rules are hardly restrictions.
Turley is fair game. It’s as simple as that.
No, we get it, X. Actually, YOU don;t seem to get that, if you practiced what you preach and started your own blog, you could have your own “open discussion of opposing views, ideas, and criticism that leads to a healthy discourse.”
But you don’t. You leach off of this site
Don’t have the money? Don’t have the following? Don’t have the support? Would rather be a parasitic leech with a ready-made audience because you know you could not draw your own?
Why bother having a blog when I can do the same here. Post an opposing view, criticism, or rebuttal. It’s what Turley supports and encourages.
You’re just upset by the fact that it’s ruffling your feathers because you can’t refute or engage in discussion without resorting to insults or putdowns.
DustOff,
Nah. Just scroll past.
X: Next time you copy and paste AI anti arguments to use against Turley’s point of view, you might want to also copy and paste AI pro arguments. Here, they are much stronger for Turley’s position. But I am not going to print them and try to out copy- paste you.
Honestly X, you being a contrarian is good for debate, but in this article, there should be no doubt that what the Democrats want to do here, in realty, is change the rules so that they can win. You know that; and its disappointing that you would try to defend that behavior.
What good is a debate if there’s no point in defending an opposing view? Or having one?
AI pro will give you more in depth context and detail, but not much more than that.
If it was so good why didn’t you post it? I think you saw it made a stronger argument against Turley and that’s why you didn’t post it.
X’s use of “Artificial Intelligence” is infinitely preferable to the “Natural Stupidity” on display here every day by the MAGA morons.
X: From Trying to Clarify. There is axiom known as the BS theory. It says that it takes a lot more energy to refute BS than to create it. Here, to properly rebut each of the points you made, would require much more time and energy than I care to spend educating you. However, here is a quick example of your first point that could take paragraphs to properly explain, but I’ll give you the headline: You tried to compare Merrick Garland’s failure to receive a Senate hearing by Republicans to plans for a radical change in the structure of SCOTUS by Democrats. Doing so is a logical “false analogy.”
If you want new “Rights” that can be achieved by the Amendment process, not by changing the meaning of the existing language.
+100
When FDR wanted to pack the SCOTUS, his own party refused to go along. So he still broke precedent and ran for and won 4 elections, which resulted later, after some legitimate thought, that a constitutional amendment was necessary to limit the president to 2 terms. This, of course, was accomplished with bipartisan support relatively soon after his death (a few years)
With his prolonged time in the White House, he essentially packed the court. Eventually replacing 7 of the 9 Justices and we had a very liberal court for decades after, as pointed out by Professor Turley. The Republicans, in turn, worked decades at moving back to a more central court and then a more conservative court by more carefully picking their judges and winning elections. This has seemed to escape the Democrats who seem to have thought that winning elections was less important and just trying to impeach any Republican who wins. If Vance or Rubio win in 2028, they will try to impeach them also.
My message to my Democratic friends is that if they act rationally with rational programs and legislation, they too can win elections. The blew Obama’s election victories. Their program resulted in losing the House after 2 years and senate after 6 years. FDR retained control of the House and Senate for 6 years, only losing control in 1938 to conservative democrats and Republicans but still having democratic majorities. As FDR’s programs grew more radical he lost support with lower popular vote totals in 1940 and then again in 1944.
The Democrats won’t face Trump in 2028 but a far more polished Duo of likely Vance and Rubio. They will be hard to beat because they have high profiles and demonstrated competence, something the Democrats have not demonstrated recently.
Packing the Court is a sign of desperation by the Democrats. They are basically saying they will need the Court to rubber stamp their radical socialist dreams. They have a minimal number of good candidates and the states they rule are awash in declining populations, corporate flight, tax flight, and massive fraud.
Best post on the subject. Thanks.
The 2024 election was the said to be the most “consequential election for our constitutional history in decades.” We elected the people we thought would solve these issues. We spoke very clearly- many people sacrificing friendships, family relationships and jobs to do so.
And they proved yet again that government of, by and for the People is just an illusion.
And as a result – 2026 may very well mark not only the 250th birthday of this Republic, but it’s death as well.
Buttigieg says packing the Court will make it “less partisan.” Think about that for a moment.
He wants four justices hand-picked by Democrats to reverse decisions Democrats don’t like. That’s not less partisan. That’s total capture.
Warren says the Court is illegitimate for ruling against “widely held public opinion.” She just described exactly what the Court is supposed to do. It was never the people’s court. It was the Constitution’s court.
The Founders built a counter-majoritarian institution on purpose. Rights exist to stand against the majority when the majority gets it wrong.
Carville says don’t run on it, don’t talk about it, just do it. That’s not a constitutional argument. That’s a confession.
Court packing isn’t reform. It’s replacement. A court that rules however the party in power demands isn’t a court. It’s a rubber stamp with a robe.
The deeper problem is that too many Americans can’t recognize the threat because nobody taught them what they have. That’s the gap worth filling. Describe the ideas that destroy republics. Don’t name a party. Just describe the behavior and let Americans draw their own conclusions.
For that you need the right messenger. Gary Sinise comes to mind. Lieutenant Dan. Founder of the Gary Sinise Foundation. Decades of serving veterans with no partisan agenda attached. People know what he stands for from his life. His foundation already does patriotic education. The infrastructure may exist.
Put Gary Sinise on camera talking about what a constitutional republic is and what threatens it. That’s not a celebrity stunt. That’s exactly the messenger this moment calls for.
You claim Democrats want “total capture” of the Court, acting as though the judiciary is currently a neutral, balanced institution. This ignores the immediate context driving these reform proposals. The current 6-3 conservative supermajority was built through unprecedented partisan manipulation by Senate Republicans. In 2016, they unilaterally shrank the Court to eight seats for nearly a year to block Merrick Garland, only to completely flip their own rules in 2020 to rush Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation through in days. Court expansion is a legislative response to a bench that has already been politically captured.
You claim Elizabeth Warren doesn’t understand that the Court is supposed to stand against public opinion. That is a strawman. The critique from legal scholars and lawmakers isn’t just that the Court rules against opinion polls; it is that a heavily politicized supermajority is systematically overturning decades of settled constitutional precedent (like voting rights and reproductive freedom) to favor special interests. When a Court is structurally packed through political Calvinball and then strips away long-held constitutional rights, it loses its institutional legitimacy.
Pointing to James Carville’s “just do it” quote as some kind of “confession” conflates a cable news pundit’s political strategy with actual constitutional law. The size of the Supreme Court is not set by the Constitution; it is explicitly left to Congress, which has altered the number of seats seven times in American history. Using a standard legislative power granted by the Founders to restore balance to a broken judiciary is a constitutional process, not a coup.
Your argument relies on a romanticized view of formation history, but you are leaving out critical constitutional architecture. The Founders deliberately left the size of the Supreme Court out of the Constitution because they wanted Congress to have a legislative check over the judiciary. Furthermore, the Court was never designed to be the final, supreme arbiter of all American policy that it is today; the concept of judicial review wasn’t even established until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The Founders did not design a system where an unelected panel could wield permanent veto power over the other two branches with zero legislative oversight.
Romanticized is what you call data you can’t refute.
It is a historical fact that the Constitution nowhere specifies that the Supreme Court must have nine justices. The Founders intentionally left the size of the Court to the discretion of Congress, giving the legislative branch a direct structural check over the judiciary. Congress has used this exact constitutional power to change the number of seats seven times in American history—in 1789, 1801, 1802, 1807, 1837, 1863, and 1869. Calling a standard, textually granted constitutional power a “coup” directly contradicts the historical data.
Your argument assumes the Founders created the Court to have permanent, supreme veto power over American society. The historical data proves otherwise. The concept of judicial review—the Court’s power to strike down federal laws—is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. The Founders did not explicitly grant it; the Court gave it to itself in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, well after the founding era.
By hiding behind an idealized, un-nuanced view of the 1780s, you are actively dodging the modern data from 2016 and 2020. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the current 6-3 supermajority was created by Senate Republicans Calvinballing the rules—shrinking the Court to eight seats to block one president, and then rushing a seat through in days for another.
OLLY,
Great comment.
It needs to be pointed out: Democrats win in 2028, they are going to attempt to reduce America from a Republic to a one party totalitarian rule.
Theirs.
We see. They say it. Out loud and in some cases, proudly. They are the real threat. This needs to be pointed out. Time and time again so people will understand what the Democrats are saying and what they want to accomplish is not some lofty goal of the will of the people.
It is total control and to ensure no one but them stays in control.
Upstate. Thank you.
You’re right. And the blueprint isn’t hidden. Klarman put it in writing. Guarantee Republicans never win another election. Pack the court first so it can’t stop what comes next. Carville said don’t talk about it, just do it. That’s not a policy agenda. That’s a seizure plan.
But don’t lose sight of something else. They’re saying this out loud. Proudly. With no concern about backlash. That’s not a slip. That’s a signal.
When a political movement stops worrying about what the other half of the country thinks of its intentions, it has already decided that half doesn’t matter.
That’s the part that should alarm people more than the proposals themselves.
Franklin said a republic if you can keep it. He didn’t say it was guaranteed.
It is odd that Bootyfudge is the Democrat speaking out on the subject of court packing.
Is he thinking this will energize the base for his 2028 run?
Or was he chosen as the spokes”man” because his political career is disposable?
I thought young children only acted as spoiled brats. Why would anybody listen to or follow people like Carville, Sanders and Warren, who are always yelling and screaming? Don’t they see that they are broken people who will do and say anything for attention and to get their way? Has society really devolved to the point where they are considered the leaders of a sane society?
In fairness I should add Trump for his tirades when things do not go his way as well. That being said he move on to the next task at hand. He has accomplished things that are productive and improved peoples lives both inside and outside of the government, unlike Warren and Sanders. Carville on the other hand, I believe has been a political consultant at least most of his life, which IMHO is non productive but self serving.
@rcs
For people under 40 who are poorly educated and dependent, and so inclined (and that’s a lot of them), yes. For older folks (boomer hippies) ruled by emotion and stuck in the past, yes. For gen x that simply haven’t paid attention to anything for 30+ years, yes.
They actually are NOTA a majority, but the dems control all of the non-governmental levers and make them *appear* to be. Thankfully this is a form of gaslighting (or as I like to call it, ‘bullsh**) that is largely ineffective now, so that’s something.
Disdain for our intelligence has always been the left’s Achille’s Heel. And they abdoluyely are aristocracy; anytime they harp about privilege it is due to someone having more money than them and thus being a threat to their status quo and power.
Phone typos, 🤷🏽♂️
I thought that a good Trump midterm strategy would have been to focus on domestic issues, tell Israel to sit down and STFU, and do everything possible to hold the House and Senate and reduce the RINO infestation. After that would have been a better time for bad optics and stupid moves… but NOOOOOO…. he couldn’t wait.
Quote: Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.”
They will absolutely do this. And it will be just the start. They’ll use DJT as a justification for anything and everything. Which is why it’s such a shame that DJT keeps giving them so much ammunition .
Steve Sailer calls Buttigieg the “lego candidate” … That’s a good line but a bit too kind.
So . . . the dems tried and failed at a veiled coup in 2020, and now are running on *openly* overthrowing our Constitutional system of government all the while continuing their revisionism painting said republic as the actual regime? This is pure evil, folks, and we have seen it before. They must not succeed.
Veiled coup in 2020? WTF are you talking about? As far as the number of justices, the constitution doesn’t mandate anything.
@Anonymous
🤣🤣🤣 Man, you are hilarious.
Whew… sorry my brain is slow this morning, having only had 1 coffee, but dude, WTF are you talking about?
I don’t think democrats have figured out that this right here is the reason for their downfall. Their move toward communism has sinked them.
Democrats are going full Fascist, and aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. If packing the Supreme Court is not about pure power lust, why not pack the Supreme Court today? Oh, right, Trump would nominate the new Justices. Of course, Democrat power lust is insatiable, and shameful. Our nation survived for 250 years, most of that time by respecting the Constitution and its original meaning, not bending it this way and that to suit our political desires. Shame on Democrats.
“Democrats are going full Fascist, and aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.” And only you can see it. Thought so.
Oh, this: “not bending it this way and that to suit our political desires.” Turley did state in his opinion “For years, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority that overturned dozens of long-standing cases. ” So, you: “not bending it this way and that to suit our political desires.”. Turley knows what he’s talking about. In your case, you’re a stupid as they come.
Whose political desires?
“Democrats are going full Fascist…..”
Wrong, the democrat party has been the target for takeover by the communists for decades. They knew the democrats were the weakest of the parties for infiltration. When have you heard any “democrat” denounce Sanders or AOC for what they are, Marxist and not Democrat? There’s no such thing as a Democrat Socialist, the word Democrat has been a cover for their true identity. There is no Democrat party.
It’s not really the senators or the pathetic ex-secretary of transportation who should concern us. It’s the absolute ignorance of those who vote for them repeatedly. And it’s not really the young people who are so ignorant of Constitutional history that they would even consider the suggestions of the moronic James Carville. It’s the American educational system that has failed so dramatically. One wonders if this is organic or somehow planned. Has any republic and constitutional democracy ever lasted as long as ours? I don’t think so. Perhaps the Chinese or the Islamists are somehow involved in the collapse of American education but it’s more likely that time is the enemy. I don’t know.
Jack asks:
“One wonders if this is organic or somehow planned. ”
Clearly, it is planned. The teachers’ unions have been assigned the job of dumbing down our populace by the new Jacobins. They have succeeded.
If that isn’t the truth.
It is not the truth. You have proof for that statement, so prove it.
It’s the truth. Deal with it piggy
Still not proof. Why so angry dustoff?
Why ask him to prove it? Your point?
And… your point?
DustOff,
This one is from 2024 and it has not gotten better, America’s education system is a mess, and it’s students who are paying the price
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/americas-education-system-mess-and-its-students-who-are-paying-price
Then there is this, SFUSD paid ethnic studies consultants $400,000 while reading and math scores cratered
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sfusd-paid-ethnic-studies-consultants-400000-while-reading-and-math-scores-cratered/ar-AA25nMyL
Planned? Got proof?
You are correct. . .teaching in public schools today is a just to get them to the next grade. Children are no longer kept in the same grade, and it’s the education elites who insist students be transitioned (not promoted) to the next grade. It’s a scam the teachers unions to retain, and they will vote against conservatives. . . .bet on oit.
“And it’s not really the young people who are so ignorant of Constitutional history…” Don’t forget geriatrics like yourself and the commenters here.
BTW, what the heck is “constitutional history”?
Spot on. I saw the collapse of our education system from the inside. 33 years in public education. By the time I retired I was totally disheartened. It was ugly and sad.
33 years in the system. So, you’re admitting you were integral in the collapse of the educational system?