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.”
Votewise, we are about an evenly divided country. Court packing is a fractal of blue state electoral college fear. They are losing population, wealth, and hope. They’ve lost an election that rejected Biden’s U.N. idea of the human right to mass migrate without borders to replace the population losses. And abdicated their State and our national government fiscs to immigrant NGO fraud. All the while ignoring the value of the cultural melting pot. I can’t shake the notion that they want to treat E Pluribus Unum by tearing it up.
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.
Right actor, wrong movie.
AI Overview
That is the iconic line delivered by Marlon Brando as Terry Malloy (i.e. protagonist) in the classic 1954 film On the Waterfront. Lamenting his wasted potential, he tells his brother: “You don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.”
“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?
This is a deliberate misuse of terms. Court packing, at least from the time of FDR, has meant increasing the number of Justices to change the way the Court interprets the law. Only Democrats have advocated it, despite decades where Republicans have disagreed with how the Court has ruled. Conflating manipulation of the confirmation process with Court packing is misleading.
And there are arguments that denying Garland a vote was consistent with past practice, given that it would have happened in the last year of a President’s second term. And even if Garland had been appointed, as it worked out Trump would still have had two appointments which would have given the Court a 5-4 conservative majority. Since many of the most significant decisions to which Democrats object have been 6-3, it is likely the Court would have come out the same way, and Democrats would still be advocating for Court packing.
To add to your correct comment, Democrat President FDR (Roosevelt) appointed more Justices to SCOTUS -by far (8)- than any other president in history. Seven (7) of the 8 newly-appointed Justices were Democrats (although one was politically undeclared but only served and advised Democrat presidents and office-holders). Two of them (Justices Black and Douglas) served the LONGEST in history (34 and 36 years, respectively.)
I am further reminded of SCOTUS’ ruling in the Noel Canning case, -rejecting Obama’s attempt to appoint three members to the NLRB and one to the CFPB using what Obama defined as “recess appointments.”
The CFPB is unconstitutional and should be elimiated.
But it is instructive. Obama and democrats responded to the “Great recession” – with lots of false claims as to its causes,
and then passed a bunch of legislation that while expanding federal power did NOTHING to address the false causes that the had claimed.
The CFPB has no powers that are in any way related to the “causes” – real or imagined, of the Great Recession.
The primary accomplishment of the CFPB is to make borrowing even harder for poor people.
The primary cause of the housing bubble that lead to everything else – was interest rates too low for too long.
Or more accurately – the failure to properly price risk in borrowing – interest rates are a PRICE – the whole idea that Government should control ANY price is ludicrous. The FED is both unconstitutional and stupid – contra the left – we actually did better before the Fed – and that is pretty damning – because Conress and the Treasury did a very poor job.
Regardless, the Fed set interest rates too low, and congress and both republican and democrat presidents fell over themselves trying to make it easier for people with poor credit to borrow at low interest rates.
Interest rates are the PRICE of risk.
We have a credit system that makes borrowing cheaper and easier for those who behave the most responsibly with month, and to make it harder for those who dont – because as we learned in 2008 – if risk is not properly priced – that just means the Public ends up paying the cost.
Senate Republicans not only denied Garland a vote in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor, they also denied him a hearing before such Committee and many refused to meet with him.
Why did you forget to mention that Democrats did the exact same thing with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett?
Fair enough about many Democrats not meeting with ACB. However, I am sure Garland would have loved to have the ACB treatment when it came hearings and votes in an expedited manner.
And he would have – had Democrats controlled the Senate. But they did not.
The party controlling the Senate ALWAYS screws presidents of the other party regarding apointsment – especially in their last year.
This is not new.
So ?
As with ALL Presidential appointment – president tend NOT to get a senate of the other party to act late in their term.
That is not new.
It is not unique to supreme court justices, or judges.
It is normal politics.
Regardless denying Garland a seat on the supreme court is one Good thing McConnell did as majority leader.
Garland was not the worst AG ever – but he was bad and clearly did not serve to be a judge or AG much less Justice
X –
Thank you. Yet again you are the poster child for GOP to GOTV.
How about shrink it to 5. Kagan, Soto, Jackson and a 4th.
Did the recent opinion in Callais affect Gingles? Compare and contrast Allen to Callais. It’s confusing. Make it all jive with the Constitution.
Thanks
In my view, Callais effectively overruled Allen. If you look at Kagan’s dissent in Callais you will see all the ways in which conclusions in Allen are contradicted in Callais. It is hard to believe that Roberts (who wrote Allen) and Kavanagh could have
voted in the majority for both.
The most recent emergency docket ruling in Allen suggests that Allen is effectively a dead letter. Not only that, it appears to incorporate the evidentiary requirements of a Section 2 claim into the evidentiary requirements of a racial gerrymandering claim under the 14th amendment. For both kinds of claims, in the absence of direct conclusive evidence of racially discriminatory intent (unlikely to be found), it will now be necessary for a plaintiff to prove that an alternative map meets ALL the constitutionally permitted objectives of the state at least as well as the challenged map.
Thank you. Gingles?
The Gingles tests have been updated in such a way that it is more difficult than ever for a plaintiff to meet the requirements. They must show that a map drawn without regard to race meets all the constitutionally permitted requirements of the state ( which can include incumbency protection and partisan advantage) at least as well as the challenged map. They must also disaggregate party voting from racial voting when showing polarisation. And when looking at the totality of the circumstances they can only rely on facts currently in existence that show discrimination, not historical facts that have current consequences. That they take this seriously is evidenced by their emergency docket reversal of Allen a short time ago.
How did Callais affect Gingles?
Justice Harlan dissented because congress must do its political work, not courts?
S2 of the VRA should just be voided due to violating the 14th amendment.
As to YOUR claim – Neither Plantiffs, nor Courts can provide Alternate maps. PERIOD – the power to decided congressional districts rests with state legislatures. Not plantiffs in a lawsuit of Judges.
Gerry mandering to increase your majority is VERY dangerous to the party in power.
The appropriate punishment is to let the electorate correct the problem.
It is not the job of the courts to enter into politics or to keep legislators from screwing themselves.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch – and you pick 2 from the rest.
The court can’t be reduced suddenly. Justices can only be removed for bad behavior, not simply because Congress wants a smaller court. The only way to reduce the court is by attrition. Congress could decide that the court shall be reduced to five, and therefore the next four justices to leave the court shall not be replaced. But it can’t just remove justices.
“Packing the Court” implies a wrongful act by the party in power to add partisan jurists so that things the party wants done will not be declared unconstitutional. Kinda like the football team on offense that wants to move the goal posts closer so it can score the winning touchdown. Playing around with Senate rules is no even in the same “ballpark’ as packing the Court…sorry for the sports analogies.
Your premise is false. Holding a seat vacant isnot structurally destablizing.
I picture a series where Democratic party Presidents are elected sequentially and the Republican held Senate refuses to have hearings and the majority of the Supreme Court Justices die of old age. McConnell would be cackling at that prospect.
Yu can picture whatever you want.
2028 is a way away – but right now Vance is polling at double any democrat and Rubio even with the leading democrats.
That could change – GOP mid term prospects could flip dramatically – tomorow
But absent a sane democrat – I do not see a democrat president for a long time.
X: What does “balanced” mean? Does it mean have Justices that follow some sort of modified originalism (.i.e.,interpret a law by following the text and legislative intent) versus some sort of judicial policy that interprets the law by comporting with what’s popular at the time? You really need to define your terms.
All 9 justices should follow the ordinary rules of statutory construction – with the constitutionj – just as they are supposed to with ALL Laws.
The rules of statutory construction – which are supposed to be the norm for all laws – START with – a law means what its plain language says
“Court-packing” means whatever people decide it means.
But traditionally democrats discus packing the court when it consistently does not go their way.
That is what FDR did – and while his efforts to pack the court failed – it did result in a change in the court and numberous retirements and a long string of absymally bad SCOTUS decisions that expanded the pwoer of the federal govenrment that still cause problems today.
Much of the nonsense we fight about here today – would not be matters of public discussion – but for FDR’s “court packing” by intimidation
The series of court decisions that followed after the stitch in time that saves 9 – resulted in the greatest loss o individual liberty in our history.
Even the suggesstion of packing the court is a very stupid idea – it just inflames passions.
It is ALWAYS to goto for those who can not get their way by legitimate means.
With respedct to your claim it is in response ot allegedly unconstitutional rulings – If SCOTUS actually follows the constitution to the letter,
then you can fix bad supreme court decisions by changing the constitution.
That is hard – AS IT SHOULD BE – further restricting peoples liberty should be very very hard.
Regardless, the left should seriously stop talking about his nonsense.
Why ? Because there is a way to Fix the problem – if Democrats go forward with this nonsense.
An Article V Convention
” In contrast, the modern calls for reform are a direct response to a court that has already been structurally destabilized.”
Nope, Thomas was appoint by Reagan.
Alito and Roberts was appointed by the first president Bush.
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, anbd Barret were appointed by Trump.
Haqd Hillary won in 2026 – She would have gotten 3 appointments and the court would be 6-3 on the left.
” 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″
No one broke precident Please cite a single instance in which a senate majority of the opposite party as the president EVER confirmed a supreme court nominee in the last year of that presidents term. That occurance is not common – but it has happened several times before – and the Senate never took up the nomination of a lame duck from the opposite party.
“legislative rebalancing is not an act of aggression.”
Whatever that means.
Those of you on the left can not even articulate what is wrong with the current court other than you do not like its decisions.
For the first time – since FDR the court is actually trying to follow the constitution. It does not do so perfectly – I can disagree with the constitutionality of several conservativer SCOTUS decisions – but again – because they are too favorable to government power the constitution did not give the government.
The way to change the constitution – is to amend it.
S2 of the VRA was unconstitutional when passed – many democrats said exactly that at the time. SCOTUS has been telegraphing that it was going to end S3 of the VRA for 50 years. it finnally and properly did so.
If you want racial germandering – put it in the constitution.
In the meantime – for over 5o years – Democrats have benefited by 12 seats in the house of prepsentatives – racially gerrymandered.,
Further Racial gerrymandering actually pushed Blacks into the democratic party – prior to the 60’s blacks voted republican.
After the VRA – Blacks had to vote democrat or lose political power.
More recently that has started to change – independent of the VRA and SCOTUS – and we are seeing he rise of black conservatives.
Regardless SCOTUS is just responding to YOUR unconstitutional laws – that is NOT agression – it is following the constitution.
John, Thomas was appointed by the first Bush and Roberts and Alito were appointed by the second Bush.
Your correct. Damn I checked those first, regardless is does not change the argument.
“After the VRA – Blacks had to vote democrat or lose political power.”
Because they had no political power voting Republican after the Republicans decided they didn’t want the Black vote anymore and adopted policies specifically to harm the Black population. This was part of the swing between the parties where the Republican Party welcomed the racists that the Democratic Party had rejected.
No they had to vote democrat – because the VRA forced them into minority majority districts.
If you were black and republican – you needed to move to have your vote count.
No Republicans did not adopt policies that harmed blacks – they fought against left wing not policies that promised to help blacks but actually harmed them.
Go read Sen. Daniel Patrick Monihan on what the Great Society did to destroy black families.
YOU DID THAT – Not republicans.
Gingrich and Clinton together reversed SOME of that – and black standards of living skyrocketed – until Obama brought much of it back – screwing blacks again.
Charity is so incredibly hard that churches and private groups F$%K it up most of the time.
Government is an order of magnitude worse.
PPACA has been an absolute disaster – YOUR disaster – it has benefited almost no one cost an enormous amount and driven healthcare costs UP as ALL SUBSIDIES ALWAYS DO.
Why are you left wing nuts so stupid ?
We KNOW this garbage does not work. It has never worked.
The damage that Democrats have done to the black community for “helping” them – is unforgiveable
You should pray there is no god – because if there is justice for what YOU have done to minorities – your in deep schiff.
John, the “switch in time that saved nine” is a myth. Owen Roberts cast his vote in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, to override the 1923 precedent that minimum wage laws are unconstitutional, on December 19, 1936. FDR first announced his court-packing plan on February 5, 1937. Therefore Roberts couldn’t have been influenced by FDR’s plan.
To be clear – you are free to try to gerrymander the supreme court – as you have everything else.
But it is not likely to be popular.
Only 26% of voters support packing the court.
But then – Democrats have always been the party that when in power think they6 know best and screw over the rights and wishes of the majority “for their own good”
Nothing is more dangerous than people who seek to screw you over “for your own good”
BTW – we all dodged a bullet when McConnell stalled the Garland nomination.
While we have had worse AG’s – he clearly WAS NOT of the proper judicial temperament.
He was a poor AG – lied to Congress under oath repeatedly, and failed to follow the constitution as AG.
Many egregious violations of the 1st amendment occurred on his watch.
I’m not aware of any problems with or criticism of Garland’s judicial temperament when he served on the Court of Appeals. Whether Garland in hindsight had the right temperament or was a good fit for the AG position is another question worthy of discussion.
There is no question Garland was a $hitty AG. He is only partly forgiven because we have had lots of $hitty AGs.
Regardless he was AG during the Mass Censorship nonsense. He Was AG during the Weaponized DOJ.
He lied to congress,
He Was AG when the rights of J6 protestors were being abused.
Had you left wing nuts just gone after the few people who were actually violent – their would have been little pushback.
But you chose to use DOJ to try and terrorize all of MAGA – and instead you re-elected Trump – that is on you.
There were more violent protestors at an average night in portland in 2020 than on J6, 2021.
You made a spectale of yourselves and made yourselves look like dangerous tyrants – but then you are.
Sunshine, go away today
I don’t feel much like dancing
Some man’s gone, he’s tried to run my life
He don’t know what he’s asking
When he tells me I better get in line
I can’t hear what he’s saying
Well, how much does it cost? I’ll buy it
The time is all we’ve lost, I’ll try it
And he can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, sunshine
YOU CANT EVEN RUN YOUR OWN LIFE – WE’LL BE DAMNED IF YOU’LL RUN OURS
Fudge or Court, When it comes to packing Pete’s our boy!
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.
When all there is is skin color there’s nothing. Skin color changes.
Separate by sane and insane. Skin color x can control towns and cities and what happens? Sane people follow law even if it’s slower.
The ruling said – FOLLOW the 14th amendment.
It’s not the Republican Party that is seeking power – it is oligarchs who have found Republican voters are easily manipulated to allow them to access to power.
The current plan in many states is to specifically disadvantage minorities; the ruling was that one could not say it was for that purpose. In the past the VRA said it didn’t matter if they said it or not; now it only matters if they admit it is for racist reasons.
Now they can be racist as long as they don’t say they are.
And yet nearly all the oligarchs are democrats ?
Yes, the VRA is unconstitutional – Government can not discriminate on the basis of RACE – 14th Amendment.
Democrats in the south discriminated on the basis of race,
Republicans are doing what democrats have done in 20 other blue states – assuring the fewest elected representatives of the minority party.
All the VRA did was politically advantage democrats.
Black Conservatives have no difficulty winning white votes.
Do you actualy think about the stupid things you write before posting ?
Have you ever considered checking to see who is lying to you ?
The current plan in many states is to specifically disadvantage minorities;
No, it is not.
the ruling was that one could not say it was for that purpose.
No, the ruling was that it cannot BE for that purpose. Which is correct. If you can prove that racial discrimination was the purpose, produce your evidence. You can’t, because you know dam well that it’s not true.
Neither party cares about voters’ race; all they care about is how they vote. Democrats want to discriminate against Republican voters, and Republicans want to discriminate against Democrat voters, and race is merely a useful proxy for voting habits. If race were the motivating factor then Republicans would also discriminate against black Republicans, and Democrats would discriminate against white Democrats. But they don’t. Therefore race is not the motivation.
Wrong.
Democrats want to pass laws to ensure one party rule: Theirs.
We have not seen Republicans saying they want to do that.
@Sally,
Are you a racist? Do you prefer to see the color of ones skin over their personal traits? Do you think one person should be given an advantage over another because they and you think they deserve it? Do you want to divide humanity into little groups that you designate according to your desires?
Or do you believe that the very differences in humanity are what has enabled it to survive for thousands of years?
The Callais decision was about eliminating an asymmetry in partisan gerrymanders. Because blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, privileging them puts a limit on red state partisan gerrymanders that does not exist in blue states. Now Republicans are just as free as Democrats to adopt favourable maps. The consequence in red states in the South will be that black voters will represent a bigger minority in many districts, though they will represent a majority in fewer. This may in the end promote the candidacies of more centrist Democrats, to appeal to white Republicans, and more centrist Republicans, to appeal to black Democrats. It may also promote the candidacies of black Republicans and white Democrats.
The political question of how minorities are best represented — is it by a limited number of majority minority districts or a larger number of significant minority districts — will now be in play. This was raised by Justice Harlan in the earliest redistricting cases and was picked up later by Justice Thomas. Their point was that this was a question of political philosophy or political science that the constitution and the courts could not answer, and in any event there were no justiciable standards, save for proportionality, which Section 2 ruled out and the constitution does not mandate or permit.
Thank you.
I doubt there will be a major change in the number of Blacks in congress – there may even be more.
Just about every black republican in congress has done so by winning a WHITE district.
Clearly Republicans do not care about the color of their representatives – only their ideology.
While democrats do not want blacks to have choices besides black democrats.
Republicans had a collective stroke when Obama wore a tan suit. They generally very much care about the color of their representatives. There are exceptions – 5, one in the US Senate and 4 in the House; all of them in the House are not pursuing re-election.
Only in your head.
Republicans had a problem with Obama because he was a really poor president – though not nearly as bad as Biden.
The country ultimately got tired of Obama – which was a major problem for Hillary.
PPACA is an absolute disaster – and now those of you on the left are demanding republicans fix it.
JCPOA is why we are fighting a war with Iran – because Obama failed to deal with them.
Obama presided over 8 years of the weakest economy in the 21st century – the weakest 8 years since the great depression.
he came accross as a nice guy, he was an excellent orator, There were lots of things he was good at – President was not one of those.
it was White Democrats who refused to vote for Winsom-Sears.
Tim Scott won overwhemingly in south Carolina
James won GOP nominations in Michigan twice and lost twice to white democrats.
Alan Keys could not get democrats to vote for him in Maryland.
And on and on and on.
“This may in the end promote the candidacies of more centrist Democrats, to appeal to white Republicans, and more centrist Republicans, to appeal to black Democrats.”
Republicans have decided to never vote for a Democrat and centrist Republicans were already able to appeal to Black Democrats, but have chosen not to.
By forcing the Black voters into a diluted condition there is no motive for Republicans to pay attention to the needs of Black voters at all. There won’t be a vote in the legislature where a White Republican has to compromise with a Black Democrat to get a bill through. That Black Democrat position will be wiped from the legislature entirely.
And yet more and more minorities are voting republican.
“The Rs have spent decades aiming to control the court”
Correct – and they did so without changing the rules or the law.
Which is why “Turley said nothing”
“Now the Ds are doing the same thing”
Not the same.
Eisenhower could have packed the court,
Nixon could have packed the Court.,
Regan, Bush, Bush and Trump could have packed the court.
They did not – they followed the constitution, the law, and the rules.
Democrats having lost control of the court – now want to change the rules and the law.
While you are free to do so – less than 1 in 4 people support that.
“Also SCOTUS is totally cool with gerrymandering to help whites.”
I doubt this will have any effect on the racial makeup of congress or legislatures.
There are numerous black representatives who have won in White conservative districts.
There are even Black Republican Senators.
SCOTUS did not screw blacks.
It screwed left wing nuts.
The most likely long term result of this decision will be more black republicans.
Isn’t that what Democrats have done for decades Sally with their gerrymandering BS? Isn’t that what flooding our country with illegals and counting them in the census does Sally? Have you ever heard of Cloward Piven and what $32 Trillion in debt does to a country?
Now, by “whites,” do you mean Americans?
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
There were not 274 undercover FBI agents.
The 274 agents were from the FBI’s Washington Field Office. They were not sent in until after the riot was underway and the building was already breached. They were not undercover.
FALSE – not only were they in the crowd from the start – but they were very upset about being used politically.
Wore still they were sent in without any coordination with CP or MPD so that there was no blue on blue violence.
The ast thing you want is a CP officer shooting a plain cloths FBI agent because he is carrying a gun.
BTW there is actual video of MANY of them in the crowd.
You can tell – because there is video showing males of the right age and attire with hand guns – yet no one was ever charged and no actual protestor was ever found with a firearm.
Further the 274 is actual agents.
There were also lots of FBI CHS’s
No the FBI was not sent in to assist after the riot started – they are NOT trained for that.
The very last thing you would do was send in the FBI.
MPD was already there and could provide more people.
The NG was waiting at the Armory on Trump’s orders from 7am. They could have been there in 10minutes.
Over 100NG were on the mall at the time – but were ordered back to the Armory in a colossal F#$K up by Dod.
There are 2200 Capital police officers. The crowd at the Capital was barely over 2500.
There was absolutely no need and no useful purpose to send 274 plain cloths FBI to a riot.
That would be more dangerous than useful.
Do you think before you post this BS ?
Yes, it is.
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.
The right times are not originalism but more textualism.
While you are wrong regarding the 2nd amendment – see the decision in Bruen – which says the ONE and ONLY step is the history at the time of the 2nd amendment and even more importantly the 14th amendment – because the framers of the 14th amendment SPECIFICALLY and Openly were restricting the power of states to restrict the posession of Firearms by freed black slaves.
While the colonial history generally favors a broad right to firearms – there were colonial era laws REQUIRING males between 16-65 to have a firearm in many states.
Regardless, SCOTUS has CONSISTENTLY allowed restrictions on firearms consistent with colonial era restrictions.
There are NUMEROUS colonial era firearms laws that TEMPORARILY remove firearms from drunks or people behaving crazy – And SCOTUS has on a number of occaisons RECENTLY upheld similar state gun laws – even egregiously bad ones – where mental health or intoxication was a factor.
“The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to change and adapt to modern circumstances.”
Correct – by amending the constitution.
“The 9th Amendment confirms that not every right known to man could be listed by name”
Correct – and because the Supreme court from 1789 through 1865 diud not take the 9th amendment seriously the framers of the 14th amendment went even farther with the priviledges and immunites clause
And SCOTUS us still mostly ignoring both the 9th and 14th amendment.
But that is a SCOTUS problem.
“Clarence Thomas’ and Mitch McConnel’s marriages would be prohibited under an “Originalist” view of the U.S. Constitution.”
Nope.
Loving v. Virginia struck done a VA law that was only a few decades old – it did NOT reverse any prior supreme court precedent.
The fact that there were no such laws prior to 1924 or that no one challenged them before 1967 does not means that our founders would have accepted such laws. The left makes a HUGE point about slave owners – including our founders screwing their slaves.
The original constitution had no protection for ANY rights, because the original framers didn’t think it needed any. They thought it would be obvious that the new government couldn’t infringe people’s rights, so it didn’t need to be stated. Enough people disagreed that it would never have been ratified without a promise to amend it to add some protection.
Yes, they designed it to change, but only by amendment, not by courts making up new interpretations that would have been foreign to anyone at the time it was adopted.
The 9th amendment confirms that there exist rights that aren’t mentioned, but it doesn’t mean you can just make up new rights that were unknown in the 1780s. The key question in any 9th amendment case is whether the right in question was universally accepted in the 1780s. If it was, then the 9A protects it. If no one had heard of it then, and everyone would have rejected it, then no later court has the right to come along and say now it’s protected.
And no, under an originalist view of the U.S. Constitution Thomas’s and McConnell’s marriages would NOT be banned, for two reasons:
1. Even in 1789, not all states chose to ban miscegenation. So even if there had never been any amendments, and no state ever chose to change its laws, they could have moved to a state that allowed it.
2. The 14th amendment is part of the constitution. There are no originalists who deny this. Originalism says that the terms it uses must be understood as they were understood in 1869.
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.
Brilliant idea!
True
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.
a very long time ago, I told X to stop his whining and complaining about Turley;s posts. Now he likes to throw that out to others.
He even lies in his complains.
Here he says that Turley is biased against Democrats – yet about 1/3 of Turley’s posts are about stupidity in europe.
Even in the US Turley is not pi$$ing on Democrats – he is pi$$ing on the far left and those who kowtow to it.
While it is unfortunately true that the majority of democrats are just quietly sitting back and allowing the far left to take over.
All democrats – Most Democrats are NOT far left.
Most of the agenda items in Agenda 47 have 60-80% public support.
That means atleast lots of democrats – often a majority of democrats.
Turley is not picking on democrats – he is picking on the left and their spineless supporters.
“Here he says that Turley is biased against Democrats – yet about 1/3 of Turley’s posts are about stupidity in europe.”
Turley can do both. They are not mutually exclusive.
Hypotheticals are not reality.
Turley is NOT pi$$ing on democrats – he is pi$$ing on left wing nuts.
Some of Turley’s targets are democrats All are left wing nuts.
It is the latter not the former that is the issue.
The professor is fair game.
As are you. When you post stupid criticisms – you will get spanked.
“The professor spends nearly every day criticizing or attacking democrats”
The most egregious behavior today is by those on the left.
I would note that perhaps 1/3 of Turley’s posts are about the abysmal state of free speech in Europe – is that attacking Democrats ?
While it is definitly attacking left wing nuts – and deservedly so, it is not definitely attacking democrats.
Even your “attacking Democrats” nonsense fails – I do not recall Turley attacking John Fetterman, or Sen. Manchin ?
Turley is NOT “attacking democrats” – he is attacking “the left”
Turley is a liberal democrat – not an illiberal left wing nut.
Regardless for the most part Turley is NOT attacking Democrats or even left wing nuts – he is attacking BAD CONDUCT or BAD IDEAS.
And Democrats, Republicans -0 even those on the left should join – and in the past would have joined in denouncing this nonsense.
When FDR tried to pack the court 100 years ago – DEMOCRATS in the senate opposed him.
Where are Democrats opposing this idiocy now ? That is easy – Turley is a democrat.
A sane one.
“The entire point of Professor Turley’s philosophy is the open discussion of opposing views, ideas, and criticism that leads to a healthy discourse. ”
An actually healthy discourse results in all ideas being discussed on their merits and bad ideas being rejected and quietly disappearing.
While you are free – as you do to repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over – it does nothing to contribute to open discourse.
“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.”
No one is looking for an echo chamber – though you are absolutely a constantly repeating echo.
But useful public discourse requires honesty – it requires listening to actually competent arguments, and addressing the faults in your own when they are found.
Not repeating the same fallacies and debunked nonsense over and over.
As ONE example – you CONSTANTLY pi$$ all over turley as purportedly biased – because about 1/2 of his examples are democrats.
But Turley does NOT attack All Democrats or only democrats. He attacks people who seek to restrict open public discourse.
Or who espouse idiotic views on the constitution – particularly the first amendment.
On RARE occasions – the people who do that are on the Right.
Butt in the past decade plus – that is almost always those on the left – it is only very recently that a significant portion of democrats sought to restrict free speech. It is still not a majority – only 26% of people support packing the supreme court.
Twice as many oppose.
This is true on issue after issue – While RECENTLY we have seen large numbers of Democrats on the wrong side of myriads of legal and constitutional issues – in MOST cases it is STILL not a majority of Democrats.
Just the most vocal ones. What is actually disturbing is that those democrats that oppose this nonsense from the left – do not speak out, and far to many are willing to Vote for left wing nuts whose positions they do not agree with.
But even there – a significant portion of Turley’s articles are about idiocy from Europe – and YOU still stupidly support European tyranny, And you pretend that this idiocy from Europe is a reflection of the whole democratic party in the US.
Is Turley slowly getting red pilled ? Absolutely – but it is both left wing nuts like you – who DO NOT Represent the democratic party in the US, and Actual Democrats – who are SILENT as fringe elements such as yourself seek to abuse even further peoples rights.
Absolutely Turley is Targeting people LIKE YOU.
But you do not represent the country, or even the democratic party.
It is however correct that Democratic leadership has a kowtowing to the far left problem.
The Tea Party did something like this to the GOP – eventually morphing into MAGA – but atleast they came from a position of legality and principle – expaning individual rights and limiting government.
In Obama’s first term the Tea Party made it clear to the GOP that in those areas they could do so, either the GOP would put forward Tea Party Candidates – or they would lose. The TP primaried Republicans where they could and they refused to vote when they did not get the candidates they wanted.
And the GOP caved to them and slowly became more and more TP – even though the TP was at best 1/3 of the GOP.
Because you can not win an election if 1/3 of your party opts out.
Today – MAGA the successor to the TP – dominates the GOP – probably 1/2-2/3 of boith Republicans and candidates are MAGA.
Contra to those of you on the left – this is NOT a huge threat – because MAGA is for LIMITED government – and less government power is no threat to anyones liberty. Non-MAGA republicans can tolerate and even vote for MAGA candidates – because they are no threat.
Democrats today have the same problem of being “owned” by a wing of their party that is not the majority.
But the Democrat problem is far worse than what Republicans went through with MAGA – the far left wants MORE govenrment power and that ALWAYS comes at the expense of individual liberty.
Maybe the left will “get lucky” and moderate dems and independents will not be threatened by left wing nuts – just as they are not threatened by MAGA – but I would not bet on it.
What appears to be happening is that the democratic party is being held hostage by the far left.
Dems can not win elections without the far left. But the far left alienates centrists and even many democrats.
So you are between a rock and a hard place.
Dems are slowly (or not) losing the working class. 20 years ago we were told the GOP was going to become the party of elite white men – but it is the GOP that is becoming more and more “the big tent” while increasingly it is the democratic party that is the party of elite whites.
It has been a very long time since a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote – Trump won the popular vote.
And as a result the left wing nonsense of ending the electoral college is not getting much attention. Now you are fixated on court packing.
Regardless – we passed Peak Woke and the democratic party is in trouble
It eitehr becomes a fringe left party or it puts the left in its place and loses elections until it can actually appeal to the center again.
Wound up much?
Not an argument
What do you offer besides trite shop-worn gainsaying?
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.
Nope. Multiple commenters tear apart your manipulated “facts” and “opinions” and left-leaning sources every single day.
No X – there are no ruffled featrhers – just boredom.
The constant:
Turley is biased against Democrats.
Turley will not speak out on Trump’s words he keeps fixating on the actual bad deeds of the left.
In today’s post – you are absolutely right – Democrats Can pack the supreme court.
It is perfectly constitutional.
It is also stupid. only about 1/4 of the country – the far left support it – because it is a really bad idea.
It is highly likely to NOT get what you want. Though it with near certainty will make a chaotic mess out of constitutional law.
The positions of left wing nuts on constitutional issues – nearly always boil down to whose oxe is being gored.
During the Tryump trials you repeatedly told us that Trumps speech could be restricted – but prosecutors and others could not – while that is neither the law or constitution – you sort of got your way – because appeals on such issues take longer than the cases and there are enough idiot left wing nut judges to uphold this BS on appeal.
Yet more recently I read of Prosecutors – I believe in DOJ being censored by judges for their out of court remarks.
Not only is their out of court speech being restricted – but judges are holding hearings to determine if those remarks make the case unprosecuteable.
This is the NORM for left wing jurisprudence – the meaning of the law and constitution depends on whose oxe is being gored – not any clear principles.
The result is self censorship. The result is chilling speech – but it goes beyond speech – the result chills innovation.
This is ONE of the reasons that Europe is doing so poorly while the US – is thriving.
The UK and Germany barely have th esdtandard of living of Mississippi – the lowest state in the US.
Why ? Europeans are not stupid. They are intelligent and creative. but when you restrain liberty or create sufficient Chaos that people can not figure out what they can and can not do – they do less – the create less they risk less and standard of living improves less.
Packing the court is highly unlikely to get you what you want – though it could well create a HUGE backlash – both as you attempt it, and even worse as you create a mess when you succeed.
Did you learn nothing from ObamaCare ? It has proven an expensive disaster – threre is no evidence it saved lives – look at demographic data – you can not find any change. It cost us about $2t per decade. It has made medicine more expensive for everyone – as subsidies always do.
And NOW it is the left demanding thatg Republicans FIX the healthcare system YOU made worse.,
Have you thought even a little of what the outcome of SUCCEEDING at packing the court would be ?
What good do you think would come from it ?
You live in utopian nonsense.
Nothing come close to working the way you hope – and then you blame others. for the mess you made.
Those who can not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
And yet those of ou on the left CONSTANTLY claim that you are put upon here.
Which is it ? Make up your mind ? Are the civility rules here – hardly a restriction ? Or are they draconian threats to your free speech ?
Unlike some here – I do not care if you come or go.
But I wish you were alot smarter.
Hearing the same old stupid long ago – often centuries ago debunked nonsense over and over is boring.
Those who can not learn from the past – are doomed to repeat it.
Trump was elected in 2017 – Because of YOU.
Trump is back – Because of YOU.
And he could quit griping about what prof T doesn’t write about.
DustOff,
Nah. Just scroll past.
Professor Turley/Darren/Kristen: Let’s settle this once and for all — Does the Professor want “X” to criticize the Professor’s post with multiple daily comments on this blog (as he has been doing) or would he like him to leave this blog and create his own?
I think you are missing the point. Open debate is one thing–and a good one. But X spends his day attempting to discredit and disparage with slams toward Turley like “hypocrite” “disingenuous” “dishonest,” etc. No reason for any of that, especially since X is not equal in credentials as Turley.
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.”
We have debates to resolve issues – sometimes that takes a very long time – but ultimately it happens.
Almost no one tries to debate the pythagoearn theorum any more
Pretty much ALL the issues you and the left raise constantly were resolved long log ago.
And yet ignorant of the past you keep bring up long debunked nonsense.
No you should not be defending a stupid view opposing gravity or the pythagorean theorum.
But even that would be welcome – if you manged to come up with a new or good argument
But you can not manage either.
Tryingtoclarify!,
Funny enough, the Swiss Business School has found people who use AI tools on a regular basis, have lower critical thinking skills.
Only 55% of Gen Z can identify AI fakes.
They must not be very bright.
If you want new “Rights” that can be achieved by the Amendment process, not by changing the meaning of the existing language.
+100
How pathetic, George Svelaz X, that you had to run back to your chatbot to copy-paste an attack on Professor Turley because you lack the legal literacy to form your own thoughts. My AI is going to dismantle your AI in short order.
1. On your claim about Senate Republicans “manipulating” the Court size in 2016:
You don’t understand the Constitution. The Senate has the absolute right under Article II to grant or withhold “Advice and Consent.” Choosing not to hold a vote during an election year is a standard constitutional check, not manipulation. In fact, Joe Biden explicitly invented this exact rule in 1992 when he was Senate Judiciary Chairman.
2. On your claim that conservatives held a majority since 1970:
You are confusing the political party of the President who appointed a justice with how that justice actually voted. Appointees like Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy routinely voted with the liberal bloc for decades on major social issues. Calling the Court “permanently conservative” since 1970 is historically illiterate.
3. On your claim about the Voting Rights Act and Shelby County:
The Court did not dismantle voting rights. In Shelby County, it simply ruled that Congress cannot use an outdated 40-year-old formula based on 1960s data to penalize states today. Congress has the explicit power to pass a modern, updated formula right now, but they refuse to do the work. You are blaming the Court for the laziness of your own politicians.
4. On your claim that changing Court size is normal history:
The size of the Supreme Court has been locked at nine seats since 1869—well over 150 years. Changing the number of seats today for the sole, explicit purpose of altering judicial outcomes is the literal definition of court-packing. It is a radical attempt to destroy the independence of a co-equal branch of government.
5. On your claim about a collapse in “institutional legitimacy”:
Legitimacy is not a popularity contest judged by political activists who don’t get their way. The Court’s job is to enforce the Constitution as written, not to act as a rubber stamp for your preferred legislation. Overturning bad, unconstitutional precedent is exactly what a neutral anchor is supposed to do.
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.
X repeats the Democrat FREAKING LIE that the Republicans made up some kind of rule to block Garland, and then “flipped” that rule in 2020. It’s a lie. The Republicans in 2016 never claimed there was some sort of rule against confirming a justice in an election year. What they correctly pointed out was that there is no precedent of a senate controlled by the president’s opposition voluntarily rolling over and giving him a supreme court appointment in his last year, when they could instead reserve the spot for the next president, in the hope that he would be from their party. And since there is no precedent, they were not about to be the suckers who would establish one. In 2020 the president was from the senate majority’s own party, so of course they confirmed his nominee. Why on earth wouldn’t they?
The underlying LIE in the Democrat narrative is the idea that the senate has some sort of duty to confirm the president’s nominations. Of course Democrats never vote for Republican presidents’ SCOTUS nominations. The Dems in 2016 openly admitted that had the roles been reversed they would not have confirmed a Republican president’s nomination in an election year (or any other year).
What happened in 2016 was very simple. The president proposed a justice to fill the vacancy, and the senate declined to consider it, as was its right. In 2020 the senate liked the president’s nominee so it chose to consider it and confirm her. Had 0bama in 2016 nominated someone the senate actually liked it would of course have confirmed that person. But of course he would never have done that.
None of this involved any change to the existing rules. So it is nothing like the Dems’ current intention of changing the rules to rig the court in their favor.
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.
Nope, it relies on the Obama fiction. The best thing to do is erase Obama by not mentioning him. He’s a cartoon character.
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.
So let’s assume for unstated non-partisan reasons that expanding the Court is a good idea. Would you support Prof T’s gradual expansion plan that would allow for naming additional Justices over 20 years? That would seem to satisfy your fervent belief that the Court should be larger without adding a slew of new Justices at one time. What would be wrong with that —- other than it would not let you accomplish your real goal of instant ideological transformation,
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.
OLLY,
“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.”
Good observation.
And a disturbing one.
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, 🤷🏽♂️
They must keep the criminal spirit alive.
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.
Old Fish, picture yourself on an Island outside of US jurisdiction, where another family is pledged to wipe you out. They kill only one of your family members and wound you. During the fracas, Donald Trump from the US tells you to hold off on shooting back while they are shooting at you. Do you protect yourself and your family, or do you let your family be slaughtered?
In the case of Israel, they shot back at those who shot at them, trying to kill their family. Donald Trump, who you think takes orders from Israel, then tells both parties to stop, but even though Israel knows they have to defeat their enemy, complies with Donald Trump. Then you get pissed off that Israel is dominating Trump and America.
In Old Fish’s case he would be one of those stuffing us into ovens. You won’t persuade him with reason, because he doesn’t think we have the right to live.
Milhouse, sometimes I am a bit naive. I really thought he was fair and could think about these things, but I found out differently. You are right, and I am wrong.
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?
The coup was 2008. It’s quite confusing.
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?
Consider education was subject to and is subject to lawsuits. The courts…