Democrats are renewing their calls to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority once they retake power. Rep. Seth Moulton (D., Mass.), who is facing a complaint over an alleged assault of a reporter, demanded the packing of the Court due to its decision to allow President Donald Trump to rescind Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Other members have joined the effort, citing the reversal of immigration decisions as the reason for eviscerating one of the most important institutions in our country.
Moulton is running for the Senate and has been seeking to reinforce his credentials as a far-left member after being attacked for objecting to the lack of tolerance in his party. This effort of realignment included publicly “sheltering” an undocumented person in his congressional office.
Now, like other Democrats seeking higher office, such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Moulton is offering up the Supreme Court to the most radical elements of his party.
I previously wrote on the 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Doe, allowing Trump to remove TPS from certain Haitian and Syrian illegal immigrants. That is the same discretion that President Joe Biden used to allow over a million such individuals to enter the country “temporarily” years ago. In the case of the Haitians, they received the TPS designation in 2010 after a devastating earthquake — 15 years ago on a temporary basis.
Before addressing the call to pack the Court over such a decision, it is worth noting that this was not, in my view, a particularly close case if you believe in following the text of such laws. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) provides that “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”
The three dissenting liberal justices, and these members, chose to dismiss that language. The majority of justices did not.
The dissenting justices sounded more like legislators in objecting to the lifting of the status quo, citing their own views of the merits of such decisions. It is a glimpse into what a packed court would likely look like if these Democratic members are successful.
Moulton wrote on X that “Democrats need to reform the court to preserve our rights and protect TPS families.”
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D., N.Y.) joined Moulton adding that the court packing is designed to force the reversal of opinions that she and the other Democrats disagree with: “It’s clear now that this legislative body must seize back the power that our increasingly unequal branches have stolen, and that must start with action to protect the hundreds of thousands of TPS holders whose lives depend upon it.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) also went public to reaffirm that Democrats are “absolutely” going to proceed with packing the Court because I think what the Supreme Court has done yesterday is, again, rubber stamp a mass deportation agenda.”
The resolution itself is ripped from the campaign rhetoric on the rise of fascism, accusing the Court of “enabling authoritarian efforts.” The irony is lost on the members that the very signature of authoritarianism is to gut courts to force the outcomes that you demand.
It also ignores that this Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against this President on major cases, limited his authority, and, as a result, has been attacked by the President in furious public statements.
Nevertheless, various figures from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg to Elizabeth Warren supported the packing of the Court.
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. Citizens will vote not only on the next president but also on the future of a core institution that has brought stability and moderation to our political system for 250 years.
The Supreme Court’s size has been changed seven times, all by Congress, all for political or structural reasons.
It has been stable at nine since 1869. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act to block Andrew Johnson from making appointments. Mitch McConnel conspired to pack the court for years, including denying Barack Obama the opportunity to replace a justice with a year remaining in his term, while rushing through a Trump appointment using a different rationale in 30 says, just before an election. Turley has no problem with a packed court, he just happens to like the packed court he has because he likes the results.
What is the point of your comment? The court has been stable in numbers for ~150 years. The current liberal justices care not for the law, rather they follow their feelings and their desire to stay in the good graces of the Left/Dems. The Dems want to pack the court in order to cement the liberal anti-law approach. The Dems want power and care not what laws or norms must be violated in order to attain it.
The current packed Supreme Court is inventing presidential immunity and justifying the racism behind the TPS decision and justifying Kavanaugh police stops based on race. They disallow proof of racism and demand proof of intent when it comes to voting discrimination and dismiss proof of intent by explaining away racist statements in the TPS decision and Louisiana v. Callais, Shelby v. Holder, and many others. My point is (which I said) was that Turley likes the packed court he has and that changing the number of justices has occurred several times in history.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “The current packed Supreme Court…”
That was an utterly moronic thing to write.
My question for you is this; do you only consider it a packed Supreme Court when you perceive it to lean more conservative than liberal?
What you, many other Democrats, and a couple of activists Justices don’t seem to realize is that the supreme court is supposed to rule base on what the actual Constitution of the United States of America says NOT based on the whims of we the people, the desires of partisan politicians, or what ignorant fools wish the Constitution said.
The Democrats wanting to pack the Supreme Court is a brazenly transparent anti-American, anti-Constitution, totalitarian political power grab.
I consider it packed when the makeup of the court has been altered to gain a political advantage.
“Mitch McConnell saw the policy‑making potential of the federal courts and worked hard – and succeeded – in getting as many vacancies filled, by and large, with young White conservative lawyers.” –Russell Wheeler
“One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.’” –Mitch McConnell
“McConnell went to extraordinary lengths to transform the federal judiciary… to remake the federal judiciary [with conservative judges].” _Politico
“We’ve been working for 30 years to change the court system in this country.” –Mitch McConnell
“The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for our Constitution, and it must be protected from liberal judicial activism.” -Heritage Foundation
“The single most consequential thing we’ve done in the time I’ve been in the Senate is the courts.” -Mitch McConnell
“A conservative Supreme Court is essential to restoring the Constitution and stopping the Left’s agenda.” -Heritage Foundation
“We’re going to have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for a generation.” -Leonard Leo
One of the things the Republican Party has been most successful at in the past thirty years (besides starting wars and gutting Civil Rights) has been making the courts in their own likeness, through means fair and unfair.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “I consider it packed when the makeup of the court has been altered to gain a political advantage.”
What I’m hearing from you is; since partisan politicians seat Justices on the court, then there’s no condition where you think the Supreme Court isn’t considered to be packed to gain political advantage. Is that correct?
The following two questions are rhetorical…
1. Was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson an activist Judge seated on the Supreme Court to intentionally satisfy President Biden’s unethically stated DEI goal to seat a black woman on the court and to gain some kind of political advantage?
2. Do you consider the Constitution a “living document” that should be read through the lens of modern day political activist Judges/Justices or is it an intentionally limiting document that must be interpreted for exactly what is says, word for word?
The second question is easier than the first. I consider “originalism” stupid and inherently racist, given the Constitution the Founders put forth only respected land-owning, white men. The Court has done everything it can to keep that in mind, I give you the examples of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which have been gutted, returning us to a time more to the Court’s liking.
Was Brown chosen because she was a Black woman, part of a group never before represented on the court. yes. If by DEI you are suggesting unqualified, I suggest she is absolutely qualified except for not being a member of the Heritage Foundation. The same rationale was used to select the highly unqualified Clarence Thomas who was replacing the icon Thurgood Marshall. If Brown-Jackson was DEI, you must agree that Thomas was as well.
you consider everything stupid and inherently racist as you’ve expressed repeatedly here.
Why is the left repeatedly manufacturing false-flag racist acts?
I absolutely don’t consider everything stupid and inherently racist. I comment on any number of subjects here where I don’t bring up racism, though many of the replies include racial comments. The Republican Party has created a narrative where the only racism that exists is reverse racism against white people. The current Civil Rights division only protects white people and SCOTUS explains away real racism and can never find intent despite the racist comments coming out of the mouths of the people doing the discriminating. I don’t find racism everywhere; I have a problem with those who find it nowhere.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “The Republican Party has created a narrative where the only racism that exists is reverse racism against white people.”
HOGWASH!
You wrote “only” and that sir is a false absolute.
No enigmainblackcom, the narrative, which is the absolute truth, is that reverse racism against white people exists and it’s getting much worse, that sir doesn’t state or imply that it’s the only racism that exists. Your claim is so utterly rediculous that I’m willing to call it an intentional lie.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “The current Civil Rights division only protects white people…”
HOGWASH!
That sir is another false absolute that’s so brazenly false that I’m willing to call it another intentional lie.
My experience has shown me that radical progressives constantly deal in ignorant absolutes the way you’ve done, it’s morally bankrupt behavior.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “I don’t find racism everywhere”
I’m not swallowing your virtue signaling because your words around here tell a different story.
You and I have been here before and I’ve specifically discussed your lack of integrity, your lies, and your tendencies towards being a “race baiting propagandist”. You’ve been caught in propaganda styled false narratives, aka lies, and you’ve now crawled in that gutter here today again.
Your choices have consequences.
The Civil Rights Division issued a blanket halt on every civil rights matter inherited from previous administrations and taken up no new matters. On the other hand:
1. CBS News confirms the Division is now focused on protecting white people from “reverse discrimination.”
A January 2026 CBS News investigation reports that former DOJ attorneys say the Division is:
“acting on the president’s notion that civil rights laws have harmed White people.”
The same article quotes a former Civil Rights Division attorney saying:
“This administration is focused much more narrowly on White people.”
This is not subtle — it is an explicit shift in enforcement priorities.
2. Trump himself publicly said civil‑rights protections have hurt white people.
In the same CBS report, Trump told The New York Times:
“White people were very badly treated… they were not invited to go into a university or a college.”
The Civil Rights Division then aligned its enforcement posture with this claim.
3. DOJ letters and inquiries now target affirmative‑action and DEI programs as discrimination against white people.
The Civil Rights Division sent a letter to Rhode Island state officials investigating whether its affirmative‑action plan discriminates against white applicants.
CBS News describes this as part of a broader initiative to protect white people from alleged “reverse discrimination.”
They also filed a lawsuit against Minnesota to dismantle its affirmative‑action hiring policies — again framed as discrimination against white people.
4. The Division’s own website now includes prompts that implicitly frame white people as victims.
The DOJ Civil Rights Division “Action Center” asks:
“Have you lost scholarships due to racism?”
“Have you been affected by DEI?”
“Are you a state or local government employee who’s been discriminated against through DEI policies?”
“Is your school participating in antisemitism?”
“Are you a job applicant who’s experienced discrimination because you’re a U.S. citizen and not a foreign visa holder?”
These prompts reflect the Division’s new enforcement priorities — focusing on claims conservatives associate with harm to white Americans.
My last word in this sub-thread off-shoot…
enigmainblackcom,
You failed to support your “absolute” claims. If you think you did, then you also fail at common sense and logic.
Also; affirmative‑action was specifically designed to be race based discrimination intentionally giving African-American persons clear advantage over all other races based solely on race; that’s illegal and utterly immoral, period.
All questions regarding the race of a person must be completely eliminated from all legal forms, all civil forms, all applications of any kind within the confines of the United States of America.
Affirmative action had a twofold purpose. 1. To ensure people had opportunities that were previously denied. 2. To establish figures below the populations of those groups to ensure white people got the most of everything. Soon after affirmative action goals were established, women (mostly white) were also considered minorities and especially in business contracting, white women, often related to white business owners cut out the minor percentage for minorities. It became MWBE )Minority Women Business Enterprises) ant things went back to the way they were beforehand.
Enigma, in your last comment to Witherspoon, you can blame the democrat party. I’ll stick to MLK, whom you have tossed out of your life; character over color.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “I consider “originalism” stupid and inherently racist…”, “…the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which have been gutted…”
Seriously?
Those are truly moronic things to write.
Nothing has been gutted from those amendments, nothing.
Here’s a blanket statement for you to seriously thinking about, don’t blow it off…
enigmainblackcom wrote, “…the Founders put forth only respected land-owning, white men.”
The Founders were absolutely genius in how they worded the Constitution and the Amendments in such a way that they could be properly applied to everyone regardless of race, even if it wasn’t politically feasible at the time it was written because of some utterly morally bankrupt people in the Colonies. The United States of America has come a long, Long, LONG way since the founders put pen to paper and no they weren’t perfect, but they set a firm foundation to build the Amendments that followed.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “I suggest she [Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson] is absolutely qualified”
Then your standard for being qualified for that position is a bit different than mine.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has shown me that she is a transparent political activist Justice shilling for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and that, in my humble opinion, makes her unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She has presented so many absurd signature significant* opinions that have completely exposed her activism that I have come to the conclusion that her political bias has made her stupid. The Supreme Court of the United States of America is no place for a stupid transparent political activist Justice.
Signature Significance: posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “The same rationale was used to select the highly unqualified Clarence Thomas…”, “If Brown-Jackson was DEI, you must agree that Thomas was as well.”
You’re welcome to that opinion regarding the DEI styled selection of Justice Thomas, there is some real truth to it.
The big difference you’re completely ignoring between Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Clarence Thomas is; Clarence Thomas has shown that he’s an intelligent Justice that IS qualified to author opinions that are actually rooted in the Constitution (as written) where Ketanji Brown Jackson is a transparent political activist Justice that has authored so many absurd opinions that I’m wondering if she’s a moron.
It’s clear that you and I aren’t going to agree. I’ve written what I intended to write and now I’m walking away and giving you the last word; please choose to use it wisely.
“I consider it packed when the makeup of the court has been altered to gain a political advantage.”
so you’re AGAINST court packing? since that is the current state.
I actually am against court packing; I’m against gerrymandering of any kind as there is little difference between racial and partisan gerrymandering which is usually the same thing with a different rationale. I favor voter ID that’s easily accessible and free. I agreed with the Supreme Court that the Florida Supreme Court used a faulty rationale in Bush v. Gore though I think there should have been a legal way to conduct a recount. How many recounts did Trump get in Arizona and Georgia? You might be amazed at the things I find reasonable.
enigma, you use a common ploy of politicos to obscure truth, the redefining of terms and then using that new definition to make your point. The Court has arrived at its current composition not by packing —- a procedure in which new Justices are created en masse, but by nominating and confirming justices under the current rules as written, A Court is not “packed” because Republican presidents were able to nominate and confirm justices UNDER THE CURRENT RULES. Court packing is creating a new paradigm for the specific purpose of altering the composition of the Court.
Gary
enigma is know for playing fast and sloppy with the truth.
What was the rule that didn’t allow Obama to nominate Merrick Garland but did allow Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett? The court has changed numbers for political reasons seven times in US History. It arrived at the current composition of 9 after the Judiciary Act of 1869 and could be changed again by another act. Court packing isn’t a new idea at all.
Oops enigma. Misstating “facts”. Obama was “allowed” to nominate Garland and did.
More intellectual dishonesty
The rule McConnel used was the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate can refuse to vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
Right below the paragraph that states abortion is a constitutional right.
You’d be surprised how readers see through your miserable life.
Be a Thomas Sowell, not a Malcolm X
“Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate can refuse to vote on a SCOTUS nomination?”
The Constitution. In particular, Article 2, the appointment clause, and Article 1, in the clause concerning its rules. Enigma, this is simple stuff you haven’t yet learned.
I’m going to say something you’re incapable of saying. You’re right that the Seane can refuse to vote on nominees. You should pray the Democrats don’t take back the Senate, the odds right now are close to 50% in some polls. The odds that Democrats take the House are over 89% in most polls.
I pray deeply that the Democratic Party returns to the party of JFK. Presently, they are lunatics like the Jacobins of the French Revolution, eating their own. Whoever wins will win. I am fortunate; I can ride any problems out, and I live in a state that is law-abiding. I fear for those not as fortunate. You should read Kotkin’s three-volume book on Stalin, so you know where you are coming from.
There is nothing wrong with debate between two adult political parties, but presently, Democrats are like wild animals. You might be next.
Anytime you can prove me wrong, I will thank you and admit it. I have done that before to others. You make a lot of errors because you twist the truth and seldom admit your errors, but thank you for admitting it this time.
Presently, they are lunatics like the Jacobins of the French Revolution, eating their own. That sounds more like Trump targeting Republicans who only agreed with him 93% of the time. How many Republicans has he turned out of office?
You are totally devoid of facts. It seems you have to rely on Donald Trump as an answer for everything; intellectually terminal TDS?
I won’t bother explaining what the Democrats are doing, but it looks like a type of French Revolution against Democrat leadaers.
You say you can accept facts yet you call everything you don’t like a like. WHy would I not use the most obvious example of Trump ousting fellow Republicans?
Trump has ousted these Republicans in the primaries:
Five Indiana state senators. Five GOP state senators are out of jobs after Trump-endorsed candidates defeated them in primaries. All five voted to block Trump’s proposal to redraw Indiana’s congressional maps.
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie. The Trump-backed candidate easily defeated Massie last week. The fiery libertarian has confronted and challenged Trump for years on a host of differences, including the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and the Epstein files.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. The man who refused to “find 11,780 votes” at Trump’s request in 2020 lost his race for governor to two men who have denied Trump lost that race. The candidate Trump endorsed, Burt Jones, is in a runoff.
Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy. Trump ardently took on the incumbent senator who voted to convict him in Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial. Cassidy placed third in his primary, losing his seat two weeks ago.
And now John Cornyn
This list is woefully complete, but you won’t acknowledge it. #sad
Enigma, you have a perfect right to say what you did and point out DJT’s actions, but that was not my point. My point is that the extreme left in the Democrat Party was acting like wild animals and eating their own. Your problem is that you don’t think, and when you do, the only thing that comes to your mind is Donald Trump, racism, and victimhood.
I said Republicans are eating their own and gave you the most public example. You said I was “devoid of facts.” I gave you several examples, and you include “racism” as the only thing on my mind when race was nowhere in the conversation. You have no interest in the facts, only changing the subject. Trolling seems to be your reason for existence. So long.
Enigma, I said, “You are totally devoid of facts. It seems you have to rely on Donald Trump as an answer for everything; intellectually terminal TDS?” I also said, “the Democrat Party was acting like wild animals and eating their own.”
Those comments are not exclusive of one another. I don’t disagree with the facts you provided. It is usual for the leader of a party to excert influence. Diidn’t you know that? My point was similar to what Turley wrote about in his book. The French Revolution led to the murder of those who made the French Revoulution possible.
Enigma, “Your problem is that you don’t think, and when you do, the only thing that comes to your mind is Donald Trump, racism, and victimhood.” That is a true statement. You are entitled to leave an argument you can’t defend, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
It’s packed just right, BY TRUMP! but also I’m ok with one or two super stupid token jurists for entertainment purposes while we drive home the constitutional principles this country was founded on. Pack the court? Are you sure you want to give Trump the idea to add more himself?, he has more power and time to do it than the lightweight leftys. Maybe this will be the next blockade of USA’s enemies.
He’s been trained from childhood. His mind is closed and not too bright to boot, anon. Skip it.
IQ 80-90 at best
“Mitch McConnell conspired to pack the Court for years, including denying Obama the opportunity to replace a justice with a year remaining in his term….” Well first of all maybe look up the meaning of “pack the Court”. Secondly, denying Obama’s chance is no different than Democrats denying Michael Estrada the chance to get to the Appellate Court for over two years because they didn’t want a Republican to have a Latino guy being lined up for a first on the Supreme Court.
“Turley has no problem with a packed Court….” How can you just lie like this? Court packing is when a president, always DEMOCRATS, proposes ADDING Justices, not chicanery with the nomination process like with Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh, all conservatives.
Your use of Court Packing incorrectly makes your comment irrelevant, uninformed, laughable and ignorable. Although I couldn’t manage to ignore it’s depth of inanity.
Republicans have altered or attempted to alter the size of the Supreme Court for political advantage at least three times: shrinking the Court in 1866 to block Andrew Johnson, expanding it again in 1869 to empower Ulysses Grant, and floating additional expansion proposals during the early 20th century to counter Progressive rulings. The idea that Court‑size manipulation is a uniquely modern or uniquely Democratic concept is historically false — Republicans have used it whenever it served their political interests.
There were several reasons Democrats opposed Michael Estrada including never have written judicial opinions, refusal to answer questions and failure to release records from his previous government service but I agree that part of the reason was his easy path to the Supreme Court (would that make him a DEI appointment?) Of course, Republicans did the same thing with Goodwin Liu, and attempted to do so with Elena Kagan, you can only see the side of the story you want to see.
But it was Democrat FDR who really really really tried, isn’t that right, enigma. You are no enigma. We see right through you.
So pack the court? is now good or would you rather spin the wheel and see if the planets align for you later?
When was the last time that size of the court increased by four members overnight?
You are assuming a number that isn’t agreed upon by anyone though some individuals may hold that view. Roosevelt proposed adding 6 members, but his effort failed.
enigma, would you support the proposal supported by Prof Turley in which the Court’s size was increased gradually over decades to dilute the political impact of the increase in size? Or is your support of an increase in size only to change the presumed ideology of the Court over night? To put it another way, is your support of enlarging the Court because there is some non-political reason to do so, or is solely to instantly reverse decisions you don’t like?
I haven’t been advocating an increase in court size at all, just commenting on the ridiculous reasons put forth as to why it shouldn’t happen, not that Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have achieved a Court that doesn’t reflect the will of most Americans. The Court is now what it was always intended to be, a body that protects the property and wealth of the rich, not exclusively white but almost. The selection process ensures that rich, mostly white and mostly male people nominate and confirm appointees, ensuring the rights of the rich will always be protected (Citizens United).
To answer your question, I don’t mind the current size, I’d prefer a meaningful and not partisan selection process where the Senate was serious about advise and consent but that body is a combination of rich, mostly white and mostly male people unlikely to do something different than they ever have, combined with being fearful of being primaried should they oppose the wished of the president and the Heritage Foundation who can run them out of office.
Pardon me for assuming that when every post supports expanding or opposes not expanding that I could think you favored expansion.
The number is agreed upon by the majority of Congress.
One change in the number of justices was from ten to nine to make the number an odd number. Enigma, you play very loose with the facts in an attempt to obfuscate the truth.
The number of Justices has changed 7 times. You aren’t even embarrassed about not knowing things and just making them up.
Enigma, you imply things to create fiction out of fact. I don’t keep count of changes in the size of the Supreme Court, but you do. Wherever you can stretch racism and satisfy your victimhood, you will memorize everything, including garbage and things that are not true. There was one Supreme Court change during the Adams administration that was purely political and should never have set the precedent. But since the last change during Reconstruction, which set the number of justices at 9 for over 150 years, there have been no changes, with only one major attempt by a Democrat, FDR, and two others by Democrats since then.
There were a few changes as the nation grew, and some during Reconstruction. I wonder if any of those changes failed, would you still be a slave today? I don’t know what the changes were and don’t care. All I know is that black people were enslaved physically by the Democrats, and later by Jim Crow Laws, followed by party politics. You are your own worst enemy.
Unlike yourself, I look things up before I cite them.
I generally post on topics I am knowledgeable about. Unlike you, I try to stick to the truth. If ever I make a factual mistake, please tell me. That is how I learn.
Calling everything you don’t already know a lie is often a factual mistake. I invite you to look at the list of quotes you dismissed, saying you read the first two and they were lies (weren’t) and didn’t bother with the rest. That’s how you learn nothing.
Enigma, you keep posting garbage. I don’t sift through garbage as you do. If the first two quotes are not accurate, I skip the rest of the garbage.
Instead of posting whatever you see on the net, why don’t you make sure they are not opinions and guesses? Research before posting.
Mom! I want a packed court!
mother: We have packed court at home.
“Mitch McConnel conspired to pack the court for years”
McConnell never introduced legislation to change the Court’s size.
He probably never beat his wife either, yet he did pack both the federal and Supreme Courts for decades.
Doubling down on your fictional reporting again?
So let me get this straight. The Dems are openly promising to pack SCOTUS rendering the Constitution a dead letter. They would grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico to guarantee 4 new Dem senate seats. Harry Reid discarded the senate filibuster to allow Obama to pack the DC circuit courts to protect Obamacare. They would do away with the electoral college which would guarantee the country would be dominated by the few most populous states like New York and CA. The Dems openly support and engage in censorship. They weaponized the federal law enforcement agencies and the bureaucracy against their own citizens. They are anti-semitic and anti-Christian. The party has no leader. Schumer and Jeffries placate the radical progressives in their caucus. And now they worry that the socialists are taking over their party? It appears to me they invited them in and they shouldn’t be surprised a charismatic socialist like Mamdani has stepped in to fill the vacuum and steal the podium from them. I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the establishment and the newbies except the socialists are overt about their authoritarian socialist goals and the mainstream Dems are stilling denying it while they continue to pursue it. Like Carville said, “just don’t say it out loud”.
The Democratic Party is now the party of totalitarian sociommunists (sō sē äm yə nists).
They’re actually the reincarnation of the 3rd Reich. Just a different color.
You left out the part where half the country would hunt them down and exterminate them as they attempt their power grab in the civil war they would unleash.
Turley himself proposed a plan to expand the number of members on the U.S. Supreme Court.
If memory serves, Turley’s plan would give both parties an opportunity to expand equally (same number from each party).
That is not what’s happening here. MAGA Republicans denied Obama about 100 federal judge picks and 1 U.S. Supreme Court pick (partisan packing of the courts).
So the real issue here is that Democrats are behaving like MAGA Republicans. MAGA Republicans established that neither laws nor Constitution have any authority. Democrats are simply following that precedent created by MAGA Republicans that America no longer has a constitutional rule of law. The constitutional republic ended under George W. Bush, Trump simply built upon Bush & Cheney’s lawless model.
I hate when people lie on this blog. Obama and Clinton each appointed more judges/justices than any other presidents since the 1980s. From wikipedia
George H. W. Bush 193
Bill Clinton 378
George W. Bush 327
Barack Obama 329
Donald Trump 276
Joe Biden 235
They were playing the odds and packed the lower courts, more is more.
Exactly.
The Absurd 21st Century Political Shift of the Democratic Party
Brief excerpt…
To all of the hyperventilating MAGA’s and outraged republicans. Ask yourselves one question, how will democrats pack the court if they win back power in the mid terms? Really think about that.
How about amending the law instead of corrupting the Supreme Court?
And how would this numbnuts feel if, in fact, the republicans maintain control and THEN proceed to pack the supreme court with a dozen more conservatives??? What is good for the goose… Why are prog/left/dems to shortsighted? Is it there blinkered brains – damaged by so much indoctrination that they forget critical thinking?
Pack the court to make it nothing more than a progressive political sock puppet? Democratic Party politicians in DC are anti-USA totalitarian minded morons.
How dare the Democratic Party accuse their opposition of breaking tradition with democratic “norms”. Democrats are brazen hypocrites trying to project their own moral bankruptcy on Republicans.
Every time Democrats lose something they blame it on the Republicans and the system, it’s never their own fault. They’re acting like a bunch of 3 year old children.
When are the ignorant voters supporting the immature totalitarian political left going to see the light and cast their votes eleswhere?
Or Republicans are messing up so much and getting too greedy with their agenda that Democrats are mad enough to do something about it… legally and constitutionally allowed. Adding justices to the Supreme Court to balance the ideological imbalance is a check on the judicial branch. Congress CAN do that.
People are voting for Democratic Socialists in NY because they are delivering on their promises. Because they are tired of Republican’s ineptitude, and greed with their agenda.
What promises have the Democrat Socialists delivered on?
Mike P
Wait till the bill comes.
Rent freeze, child care ( universal). Protecting workers and tenants. Soon there will be the city run grocery stores.
Anonymous wrote, “Adding justices to the Supreme Court to balance the ideological imbalance is a check on the judicial branch.”
No you foolish, foolish person; it’s a brazenly transparent attempted power grab to intentionally undermine the Constitution of the United States of America.
The DC Democrats don’t give a damn about the Constitution, period. The Democrats rhetoric and actions have shown us over and over again that they think the Constitution it’s a quaint 250 year old document that’s obsolete in the 21st century and it gets in their way of their regressive “progress”.
How exactly are they going to undermine the constitution Steve?
In 1992 a bunch of us Arlington lawyers went to the opening of the Texas Wesleyan University School of Law in Fort Worth, now part of the Texas A&M University system. That was a big deal. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, attended the dedication. We got to spend some one on one time with him. Priceless. Among other things he opened our eyes to a fraternity of judicial officers- judges he had met in his travels around the world. Justice Kennedy’s message was that those other jurists saw our independent Article lll judiciary as the shining city on the hill of world jurisprudence. That is also a big deal. It gets in our face about what happens outside the box when Article lll outcomes are diddled with by court packing here inside the box.
Impressive
“the reason for eviscerating one of the most important institutions in our country.”
The Democrats have made it crystal clear that they have absolutely no regard for any of the institutions of our country, no matter how important. In fact, for a great many, possibly most of them, that evisceration or even outright destruction appears to be their most important objective. Treat them accordingly.
Our second communist president, Wilson was the first, FDR, threatened the court with packing if they ruled against one of his policies or programs. Can’t remember which or the details. They caved and ruled in his favor. So the communists of today have that example to go by. And I really wish someone would force Carville to take his meds.
That is a bum excuse. If the Democrats take power, they can simply change immigration law however they like. Court packing is only necessary to change constitutional decisions.
Dems supported Biden’s open border policy since they viewed it as a way to get people registered to vote as democrats once they achieved citizenship.
So what? That is legitimate. So is impeaching and removing the Republicans on it. Same is arresting and criminally charge them for crimes that committed (such as tax fraud and bribery for Thomas).
The Rs spend decades campaigning on installing radicals on the court. But Turley only complains when Ds want to do the same.
Do you know how stupid you sound?
Today’s Democrats want to destroy the Republic. That is why. They want complete and total control. They want to pack the court to ensure Republicans never win an election again. They have said it.
If you believe in freedom, liberty, the Constitution, America, what the Democrats want should scare you.
And no. Republicans have not done any of that.
The Absurd 21st Century Political Shift of the Democratic Party
Y2K. It’s brutal.
Sally: You missed the point. Turley’s complaint is not about merely installing radicals. His complaint is about “increasing the numbers” to install radicals.
“It’s clear now that this legislative body must seize back the power . . .” (Rep Clarke, et al)
The Founders, in their brilliant design called “Separation of Powers,” gave you a means to do that properly: change the law. In case you skipped civics that day, you are the *legislative* not the judicial branch.
In its lust for total power, what the Left wants, the communists call “policy courts and judges” — a judiciary that rubber stamps their policies.
Sam,
It is clear of the way the Founders meant the Republic to be ran.
And it is clear today’s Democrat party is seeking to undermine the Republic. We see it by their words and would be actions. They are not even bothering to hide it. “Just do it!” to secure their absolute power over everyone.
The political left has become a cult of Sociommunists (sō sē äm yə nists).
Amazing X is showing Citizens Vigilante concurrent to these Communists attempting an overthrow of OUR Constitution. We’re now seeing the evidence COVID was engineered, timely released perhaps just in time to overthrow an effective leader in an attempt to maintain the leftwing Cabal’s grasp on power. It’s almost as though the Judiciary has been compromised, FBI compromised, and the DOJ has been compromised and they are now promoting the idea that when the People have been subjected to a long line of crazy, take care of it.
🎱 wrote, “Communists attempting an overthrow of OUR Constitution”
That’s actually incorrect; what they’re actively trying to do is undermine the Constitution so badly that it’s no longer enforceable. Abolishing, overthrowing as you say, the Constitution isn’t necessary when no Judge or Justice will enforce it.
Steve Witherspoon. You must be having an aneurism. No such thing is happening or will happen. You’re just panicking over the fact that Republicans are messing up so bad and are not holding Trump in check over his idiotic whims and outright lying. More people are tired of it than support Trump. The polls show how bad he’s doing. Democrats will regain power because Trump and the Republicans are overreaching and not delivering on the economy.
Republicans KNOW they are going to lose. That’s why they are now trying to mitigate that looming reality by rigging the election with redistricting and pushing for the SAVE act. They know they can’t win without rigging the system in their favor.
X wrote, “No such thing is happening or will happen.”
You’re welcome to your own opinion on that but the words and actions of 21st century Democrat’s tell a different story and you’re clearly not listening.
Time will tell.
X wrote, “That’s why they are now trying to mitigate that looming reality by rigging the election with redistricting and pushing for the SAVE act.”
You’re parroting pure propaganda gaslighting that’s a baldfaced lie.
It’s almost funny, almost, how the progressive left falsely claims that Republicans are trying to rig federal elections when the actual facts show that the Republicans are trying to UNRIG our federal elections. The Democratic Party political actions over the years have been clearly race based, which is brazenly unconstitutional, and the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to prevent our federal elections from being secured in such a way that actually prevents non-citizens from voting in federal elections as is dictated by law. When it comes to federal elections in the USA; the Democrats are anti-USA, anti-Constitution, anti-law, anti-logic, anti-critical thinking, and anti-common sense.
Our current crop of 21st century Democratic Party politicians are morons and if you vote for any of them then you are either an ignorant blind sheeple or just a moron. You don’t have to vote for a Republican, but if you want the United States of America to continue to exist, yes literally exist, don’t vote for a Democrat.
Witherspoon, your emotional outbursts are not based on facts. Trump’s poll numbers are in the toilet. The economy is not doing what Trump promised. He started a war he cannot shut off. Costing us billions, what did we get in return?
Republicans know they are in trouble. That’s why they are desperately trying to change the rules before the mid terms. They want the rig the election in their favor. It’s as simple as that.
They just want all the things.
X, too bad Biden’s numbers were lower than Trump’s. Aw, look at what AI says:
“Barack Obama’s approval rating began at 68 percent when he took office, but it dropped to the low 40s by August 2010.”
Trump just beat Biden. He is polling in the 30’s. Disapproval is around 68%. That’s not…better.
Xclown: you lying POS. here is the polling average for Biden: 39 approve 57.1 disapprove
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating
BIDEN:
InsiderAdvantage
1/18 – 1/19 800 RV 39 59
Spread-20
CBS News
1/15 – 1/17 2174 A 37 63
Spread-26
Rasmussen Reports
1/13 – 1/19 1500 LV 43 55
Spread-12
Harvard-Harris
1/15 – 1/16 2650 RV 39 57
Spread-18
Economist/YouGov
1/12 – 1/14 1425 RV 41 56
Spread-15
Wall Street Journal
1/9 – 1/14 1500 RV 36 52
Spread-16
FOX News
1/10 – 1/13 922 RV 42 57
Spread-15
Emerson
1/10 – 1/11 1000 RV 37 52
Spread-15
CNN
1/9 – 1/12 RV 37 63
Spread-2
ALL of Biden’s approval ratings show DISAPPROVE much higher than approve, like 39-59, 37-63
HeyX, here are Trump;s latest numbers taken from TODAY;s listings
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports
Approve 46, Disapprove 53
President Trump Job Approval RMG Research
Approve 43, Disapprove 55
Here’s from yesterday. Friday:
President Trump Job Approval Morning Consult
Approve 43, Disapprove 54
you are such a liar I don’t know why anyone even bothers to read your whiny, retaliating comments.
Thanks for sharing those specific polls! If you look closely at your own numbers, Trump is underwater by 11 to 12 points in both Morning Consult and RMG. Individual polls always fluctuate, which is why non-partisan aggregators take the average of all polls—including Reuters, Marquette, and CBS, which have him lower. When you average them all together, his current national approval sits between 36% and 41%. Pointing out the overall average isn’t lying, it’s just looking at the whole puzzle instead of a few pieces.
The consolidated national average tracked by aggregators like the New York Times Polling Index sits at 38% Approve to 58% Disapprove, establishing a net negative rating of -20 points.
Trump is not doing good at all.
1. his personal polling is CURRENTLY above 40%. Biden rolling average was 39
2. You said, “He is polling in the 30’s. Disapproval is around 68%.”
where did you get that LIE??????????? please tell us where you picked up that single “outlier” gem?
Be specific. cite your source. I did.
3. I use Real Clear Politics, which is the most neutral. You cite left wing rag NYT? that selects its polling sources plus its own? Ha Ha Ha. Hilarious georgie. Real Cute, So amusing. Sigh.
Go to bed aNd sleep it off. past your bedtime. Make sure your thumb is clean.
WTH are you talking about? 43% and 46% approval vs. 55% and 53% disapproval equals “underwater by 11 to 12 points” ?????????????????????????? Do you even know how to read these numbers X?
x—and no one chose to post “specific polls.” they were the ONLY polls listed by the poll aggregator, RealClearPolitics. You are so dense you don;t even realize that sarcasm only works when it has a twist of truth in it.
why does X always disappear after someone takes him down? He’ll be back later, hoping no one reads this.
Another day, another instance of the modern left openly saying they will destroy our country for good this time if we are stupid enough to hand them power, or if they can cheat sufficiently, or if they can play the long game for long enough.
Modern blue voters that aren’t snot-nosed brats are the kind of asleep that necessitates checking for a pulse. Maher, Fetterman, and the Professor appear to be quite literally the only three showing any signs of life.
Why did he wait so long? There were people who would have found it useful in 300 A.D.
Dear Mr. Turley, my own mother was a democrat through and through and taught my older sister to be the same. Abortion as well as the incessant bullying and name calling by the democrats turned me away from them back in the 70’s. (We see the name calling and bullying here, on this site each day by them) Democrats only have one talking point: hatred of Mr. Trump. Can someone here state any type of platform the Democrats may have? I will take the time to go over it. My guess is that once Mr. Trump is out of office, all the talk of increasing the Supreme Court will vanish as democrats know, they will not always be able to have their way.
Trump should just beat the Dems to it and pack the court himself. if the Dems say the magic number is 13 then appoint 4 more Justices’ right after the midterms if the Conservatives lose the Senate and get them confirmed before the Senate changes hands. If we win and hold on to the Senate in 2026, then look to apply the same strategy to the 2028 presidential election and get new Supreme Court Justices confirmed during a lame duck session. before Trump leaves office.
Only Congress can change the number of judges and the votes are not there.
But points for not even trying to pretend that Trump is not a dictator.
ano
Trump is not a dictator.
_______________________
He is NOT. Who used the IRS to attack the tea Party.
Since when do the Dems announce their strategy in advance? When we take back power, we will pack the Supreme Court!
Another Trump PowerUp unlocked! Defeated on all fronts, leftys pull out their final boss: the commies!
The Marxist come out swinging, finally unleashed, no longer suppressed and relegated to their shadow worlds, all following along in their little red book of commands in unison.
With the power of the people surging through his veins and holding the shield of the US Constitution, Trump blasts away at all the wretched open sores left over from their previous losses, the commies screech and wail! Trump throws insults that strike deep at their ideology before emitting his powerful TDS wave to cloud their judgement and confuse his enemy with facts. The commies resonate with confusion and a flurry of illogical ideologies, crippling their red book focus as they stumble back, search for an effective response and come up empty with “Orange man bad” again and again, in a doom loop of nonsense…
Tune in next week and watch as Trump’s America packs up the communists and sweeps all the crumbs back into the city sewers.