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.
It’s things like this (immigration re-issue), that make me feel like I can’t wait for the Mid-Term elections to be over with.
Just to tired of it to be fed-up.
Democrats are renewing their calls to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority once they retake power.
Wishcasting.
Democrats are in schism. The DSA has all knives out for DNC leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Jeffries is being savaged by DSA where Jews are coming to his defense.
Jewish leaders rush to defense of Hakeem Jeffries as emboldened DSA puts him in crosshairs
timesofisrael.com/jewish-leaders-rush-to-defense-of-hakeem-jeffries-as-emboldened-dsa-puts-him-in-crosshairs/
crosshairs!
DNC & DSA are devouring each other which gives Republicans an upper hand especially given the SCOTUS rulings on VRA and black gerrymandering. Bill Clinton acolyte, James Carville, is urging Democrats to go all out schism.
‘I Ain’t In The Same Party’: James Carville Calls For Total Democratic Break From Socialist Left
“Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you. I’m sorry. I’m just not,” Carville said during the broadcast. “And I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the ‘S-word.’ Schism. I really do.”
Carville argued that mainstream Democrats should no longer try to maintain a “big tent” coalition with the democratic socialist wing. He suggested that the party should actively negotiate a formal parting of ways, forcing DSA-backed candidates to run exclusively under their own banner rather than using the Democratic Party line. “Let’s negotiate the terms of a schism here,” Carville said. “Maybe we can part under some kind of advantageous terms for both of us. But I’m done. I’m not in that f—ing political party.”
…Nevertheless, Hunt warned that the presence of far-left candidates gives “a great gift to Donald Trump” unless mainstream leaders publicly push back.
tampafp.com/i-aint-in-the-same-party-james-carville-calls-for-total-democratic-break-from-socialist-left/
There is no Democrats “retaking power”. These are Legacy Media talking points, much like they whipped up Kamala Harris frenzy before Donald Trump clobbered her. If anything the DSA fanatics will create a sea of blood. Malcolm X, a Marxist, was killed by Nation of Islam members. RFK was assassinated by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, a Palestinian-Jordanian who held zealotry level anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine views. Today’s DSA young punks are Sirhan Sirhan reincarnated
Meanwhile a Virginia judge blocked the Democrat controlled Virginia Legislature assault weapons ban SB749 from taking effect on July 1. SB749 bans the sale and transfer of what Virginia defines as assault weapons and magazines that carry over 15 rounds. This is a huge win for 2A lovers.
A judge in Lancaster County has issued a temporary injunction against the Virginia State Police enforcing the “assault firearm” ban and carry prohibition, as well as the 15-round magazine capacity limitation! The injunction is in place until December 31st and could be extended. We expect the Commonwealth to appeal and things could change. Watch for more alerts as this fight continues.
Also, an AWB lawsuit was heard in Washington County today (VSSA/NRA lawsuit). A ruling is expected in a day or two.
https://www.vcdl.org/va-alert-6-25-2026-breaking-awb-injunction-win
“Moderate” Virginia Democrats are getting their butts spanked in the courts of public opinion and VA Courts because they have gone looney left. Many regular Democrats express regret in voting for Spanberger and her ilk.
The DSA have destroyed the once towering DNC. It all happened from within.
Estovir, we do know heaven is watching and taking notes for the security breaks in the USA.
Good grief
A tiny number of Democrats who have no capacity to pack the court … is the proper beginning of that whine.
OT, this will be a tough sale for Texas by Talarico’s people: “We’re all trans . . . we’re all gay tofu-eating vegans . . . we’re all going to hell.”
And that’s supposed to get people to vote for him?
https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/2070686714784362729
I thought “we are all in the basket of deplorables” would slow Republicans, but it did not.
If a Democrat majority in Congress and Democrat president pack the courts, they will grant instantaneous citizenship to millions of those currently here and extend it to the next several million arrivals. It will be the end of private property rights and personal liberties. This is not a situation we can vote our way out of, because our votes will be diluted into irrelevance.
There are over 200 Million American citizens eligible to vote. If 1% more votes will dilute your vote into irrelevance you are on thin ice already.
The word “temporary” in TPS, what does that mean? How long? Does anyone review cases and the status of the country? Even before the earthquake of 1990, the city where I grew up was developing a large Haitian community. How and why? I know Haiti gets hit with every hurricane that comes along. (I never understand why the DR–same island–get spared most of the time.) I know it is an unstable county going way back. Their citizens are very minimally educated (5th grade) unless they have the money to pay for an education. Of course they would want to go someplace for free education.
Going back to those Haitians who have been here just from 1990–have they taken citizenship in our country? Are they self-sufficient? I know many do work. What I don’t know for sure is about any gangs from Haiti.
If the Ds (DSA) do somehow pack the court as they say, I hope it bites them in the butt… In my state the Ds changed the policy of replacing an empty congressional seat because there was a Republican governor and one of our elected wanted to run for president. He lost. But, after the change, a seat became available due to death with a Democrat governor–and they now wanted to change it back to the old way of an appointment. It was not changed, they lost. I hope if they think they can pack the Supreme Court with radical judges (who they will insist be beholden to them) that they get stuck.
I really can’t stand how Congress works (or actually does not work). They have become news channel political activists, hoping to get their face on the nightly news.
Haiti and the DR are on the same island (as you know), they get basically the same weather. Haiti si a failed state, while DR is successful. Not rich, but stable and successful. The difference comes down to successful versus failed leadership. In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond has a whole chapter on how all that came to be.
“I never understand why the DR–same island–get spared most of the time”
Because the DR is on the leeward side of the most powerful portion of the hurricane.
There is also the economic strangulation that the US and France performed for the last hundred years or so over the fact that Haiti is the only country where the slaves successfully overthrew the slave owners. American and France thought that the slave owners were unfairly deprived when the property decided to not be property anymore and instead to be self-employed humans.
The extraction of the debt by extortion meant that Haiti was deprived of a large portion of investment capital. This has resulted in a crippled country that has ended up stripping most all of the landscape bare for fuel for cooking rather than being able to buy coal and petroleum. With limited trees to hold back the water that surges down the hills there is additional damage that is done.
Poppa Doc clear cut the islands timber resources for self profit. Then his son Baby Doc raped the people some more till they rose up and kicked him out. Get your facts straight fool.
Democratic Socialists of America courted by mainstream Democrats made me think of a parasitoid wasp that plants its larvae in another bug where it eats it, consuming it from inside, until it dies.
The Democrats brought the DSA within and now it is munching the Democratic Party from inside, eating its guts out, and only now do Jefferies and Schumer wake to the peril.
This may be the beginning of the end of this loose coalition of gangsters and lunatics known as the Democratic Party..
Communists and socialists get elected in deep blue urban areas like NYC, Minnesota, and Seattle. Feeling empowered and untouchable, they then flaunt their America-hating commie antics for all to see. The rest of the country takes notice, and the GOP benefits overall.
Oldman– “The rest of the country takes notice, and the GOP benefits overall.”
I truly hope that proves to be the case. The Democrats’ crazy ideas and antics in 1968 had that impact and maybe it will again.
Young, explain why Trump can’t get the SAVE Act passed.
Maybe because the President doesn’t pass laws. That’s up to Congress.
Young, it plainly appears that SAVE doesn’t have enough Republican votes to pass the senate; a fact that Trump has trouble processing.
Then it will pass, right? Are you asking about the nuances of parliamentary procedure?
I have trouble processing that too. I guess they’re ok with vote fraud like the dems.
Young, explain why Trump can’t convince Congress to get the SAVE Act passed.
OT, but too funny not to pass on. According to the NY Times – the Gray Lady, er, the Gray Gestating Person – a former newspaper: there is a new vast right-wing conspiracy. Three women associated with the Trump administration are all pregnant at the same time. This is a sinister political plot to take over the world, I tell you! They actually think that.
https://nypost.com/2026/06/26/opinion/new-york-times-is-losing-its-mind-because-republican-women-are-having-children/
Old Man, here’s a sample from that NYT article. Tell us what’s wrong with it:
…………………………….
“It’s really noticeable that the MAGA women are not hiding their pregnancy,” Lewis said. “There is pride in being pregnant and being fertile.” They are modeling the idea, she said, that “one of the ways women can hold power is by being mothers and leaning into the imagery of that.”
This is particularly striking when it comes to Vance, in part because she is the most reticent Trump world figure and the woman who least fits the obvious mold. Before announcing her pregnancy, she spoke on Meghan McCain’s podcast about feeling that three children was enough. According to Vice President Vance’s new book, “Communion,” it was hearing from Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika, that she regretted not having more children before her husband was killed that helped change Usha’s mind.
…………………………
The article has several photos of these women looking happy in fashionable maternity dresses. Hard to see what’s wrong with that. You should always look at a story before commenting.
You didn’t provide a link, because it’s behind a paywall. Are you suggesting the NY Post made up all the quotes it pulls from the Times article?
The New York Post doesn’t care if their quotes are totally out of context. The article is clearly written for women with emphasis on maternity fashions. But unless you have a subscription, there will be a paywall.
Elon has been busy.
OldManFromKS,
“Together, the women have created a notably consistent, and somewhat paradigm-shifting, picture of the White House’s family and fertility platform.”
Hard to take the NYT seriously when they call it a “fertility platform.”
Probably the biggest issue they have is the possible child to grow up as a . . . . MAGA.
Don’t make this a both sides thing. It’s insulting. The Marxist Democrats are the problem and they want totalitarian rule plain and simple.
It’s plain to see that the Democrats will never enforce immigration laws and in fact they will open the borders wide again if they get the chance. They are traitors to the American people.
“the core precept of democracy — a well informed public gets to make the policy choices they deem best suited to the times. ”
Wrong! That may be the core precept of third world “democracy” (aka “mob rule”), but we have (or are supposed to have, according to the Constitution) a representative Republic. The operating premise of that Republic is that an informed public does not get to make any policy choices at all. What it does get to do is to choose the people who will represent their interests when making what those representatives believe are the choices “best suited to the times”, or superior because of some other attributes they believe are required.
The structure of the SCOTUS is not the problem.
This SCOTUS and every other SCOTUS must support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
The problem is that it does not.
The judicial power, the power only to judge—that is, to ensure that actions comport with law—is vested in the judicial branch.
The SCOTUS has no power to “interpret,” modify, alter, or amend the Constitution in any aspect or facet or to any degree.
The catastrophic inflection point for the United States of America was Lincoln, when the SCOTUS had a sworn-oath duty and an existential obligation to declare secession not prohibited and fully constitutional, which it was and is.
Every subsequent act of Lincoln was and remains similarly unconstitutional, including the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Lincoln’s fellow traveler, Karl Marx.
The SCOTUS failed its own branch of government, the American people, the American Founders, and America itself.
The entire communist American welfare state initiated by Lincoln must be abrogated and terminated, and America must be placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the American Founders, to include the population established by the Founders in their enacted legislation, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802.
The Nation, the Constitution, and the Population of the American Founders.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The enterprise is a difficult one; but ‘where there is a will there is a way,’ and what colonization needs most is a hearty will.”
– Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857
Daily blaming Lincoln from Anon! LDS!!! Anon dreams of Lincoln every night.
Was that a rebuttal or simply the semantic mayhem that is apparent?
Was it just as I thought, the thesis is unassailable and irrefutable?
Thank you so much, ma’am.
How nice. O-dumber care strikes again.
HOLY SMOKES: Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Oz have just announced OVER *ONE MILLION* PEOPLE are on Obamacare with NO Social Security number…
You wonder why the cost keeps growing.
Dustoff, show us a RELIABLE source to support that claim.
The source is right there you fool.
The source is RFK Jr..???? The same RFK Jr. Who denies the effectiveness of vaccines?? That’s not a reliable source!
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Oz are both grifters.
The whole Progressive party are grifters. Every single last one of them. Wanting to grift off the taxpayers so they can live like the Obamas.
SCOTUS: Not That Popular
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) currently holds a net negative public approval rating, with roughly 42% of Americans approving and 52% disapproving of the job the justices are doing. This represents a historically low period of popularity for the institution, deeply split along partisan lines.Current Approval MetricsOverall
Rating: Polls show public approval for the Court sitting between 40% and 42%.Historical Context: For most of the early 2000s, the Court enjoyed majority approval (often around 60%). The drop to the low-40% range has persisted since 2021.
……………………………………..
Turley would have us believe the sky will fall if Democrats pack the court. But according to these numbers most Americans would welcome the change. This idea that the country would be lost without Thomas and Alito doesn’t play outside the rightwing bubble.
why don’t you publish the partisan polling entity.
“SCOTUS: Not That Popular”
AnyMoron, it does not matter even one goddamned microscopic bit whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States is “popular” at any given time. Stability of society, culture, and governance that is not subject to the whim of easily led idiots is the whole point if the Constitution.
AnyMoron can say the Supreme Court doesn’t ‘have’ to be popular. But if they AREN’T popular, the people will make changes.
LOL… sure they will…
Get a grip
SCOTUS: Not That Popular
That means it’s doing its job correctly.
Free Speech Advocate, so then a ‘really’ unpopular court is doing an ‘even better job’..?? And if it’s approval falls to zero, then the court is doing a ‘fabulous’ job..???
Possibly, but possibly not. All I said was that “not that popular” is a sign it’s doing a good job. A court that sticks to the Constitution will usually be “not that popular” because most of the time there is some political passion or other where people chafe at the Constitution’s limitations. If the court felt it had to go with popular opinion, we might as well not even have a judicial branch.
SCOUTUS is the one branch that is NOT a popularity contest and works only systematically. unless you’re KBJ.
The Democrat Party is now controlled by literal communists who hate America and want to destroy it.
The Ragin’ Cajun James Carville this week declared a schism in the Dem Party. It’s a serious miscalculation to prematurely call a complete takeover for the DSA wing. It’s a battle being fought and the winner won’t be known for several election cycles.
Try to see past the sensationalist alarmism the media doles out daily.
The DSA schism/war is a chance for Repubs to make a strong play for centrist Dems who see their traditional coalition disintegrating. Moderate Dems and Repubs share a political goal — keeping the DSA from achieving a power grab at the national and state levels. Think divide and conquer, a tried and true “winner” strategy.
He conveniently leaves that part out.
if they do that, then the Republicans can do the same next time they win. And so on and so on until every attorney in the US is a Supreme Court judge…
The Republicans should introduce a bill NOW to expand the Supreme Court. Let’s see how that works out!
Once a week Trump! should mention he’s considering making it happen just to get their hackles up.
Being an attorney is not a prerequisite.
Voters of both parties should oppose any politician violating their oath to follow the U.S. Constitution.
But what do you do if Trump violates his oath of office on a near daily basis? On his first day in office, less than 24 hours after taking his sacred oath of office, Trump tried to illegally amend the 14th Amendment through Executive Order. Today he threatens to run for a third term.
If Democrats respond by being loyal to their oath of office (following laws), aren’t the Democrats figuratively bringing a knife to a gun fight?
Ano
But what do you do if Trump violates his oath of office on a near daily basis.
_____________________________
Why do you lie.
I generally recommend therapy for those who make that assertion since he’s not doing such a thing. It sounds like a bad case of TDS coupled with complete ignorance.
The biggest loser was Obama who has the worst record of any modern president at the Supreme Court. Obama’s win rate wasn’t just significantly lower than other administrations, it was the lowest surveyed. The Obama administration won just 50.5 percent of its Supreme Court cases, according to a comprehensive study going back through EVERY CASE for 100 years! That was DESPITE the Supreme Court being, mainly liberal in its decision-making.
Ilya Shapiro, one of the authors of the study, noted that “the reason this president has done so poorly in the High Court is because he sees no limits on federal – especially prosecutorial — power and accords himself the ability to enact his own legislative agenda when Congress refuses to do so.” In short, he was ‘King’ to rule by fiat, or has he said ‘pen & phone’ you pretend Trump is…
In short, he was worse (as in more abusive) than Trump. From what I can find, Donald Trump has a win rate of approximately 70% at the Supreme Court (which is FAIRLY NORMAL). However, he only wins 31% in the lower Courts which are packed with Anti-Trump judges the Democrats use to shop and stop Trump from enacting Constitutional changes and powers.
See, reality isn’t your delusional world view.
It’s a problem because the Supreme Court works for the Federalist Society. The lower courts are packed with Federalist Society judges as well, but they know if they rule in favor of Trump then it won’t get to the Supreme Court. It is the latter component that explains why Trump speed-runs failure in the lower courts – they want to get a ruling that covers the nation, not just one district.
Sorry, replied to the wrong person. My bad.
It was a good read. Thanks
Illegally amend, interesting given it’s a open SCOTUS question who could decide he is right. TDS on the third term. And, remind me again what mendment did Joe Biden declare passed? Oh, the ERA. Biden affirmed that the ERA had “cleared all necessary hurdles” and was now the 28th Amendment and “the law of the land.” He directed recognition of it as guaranteeing equal rights regardless of sex.
The 14th Amendment lingo is unclear as to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, leaving it open to interpretation.
It’s up to Congress to clarify the meaning (per Article I, Section 8, Clause 4).
I predict that will be the opinion this week in Trump v. Barbara.
Yeah, and Dems will be howling because they don’t want Congress determining Citizenship Law, they want their activist lawyers and Federal Judges (a handful of elites) to decide it. That’s their fake concept of “democracy” — getting the result their activists want in defiance of public majority opinion.
“It’s up to Congress to clarify the meaning (per Article I, Section 8, Clause 4).”
The alternative view is that, according to Article III, it is the role of SCOTUS to decide what the Framers actually intended that phrase to mean. I am very much more sympathetic to that view. Unless Roberts decides that he needs to obstruct a clear outcome to maintain his DC party circuit popularity, that is what I expect the ruling to reflect. I also expect the outcome to be against at least some variations on “birthright citizenship”, including birth tourism, although it would not surprise me if the prevailing opinion is nuanced to a certain extent.
You are probably right as to the result, but everyone, including you, seems to ignore the last 7 words of that sentence in the 14A: “. . . .and of the State wherein they reside”. This, to me, sets a condition precedent to applicability of the birthright citizenship–they (the “persons” ) have to already “reside” in a State. That lets out the foreign tourist and the midnight border-jumper but clearly includes the freed slaves, which everyone agrees were the intended focus of this sentence.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means being fully bound by the laws and governing authority of the United States.”
– Gemini
____________
“Jurisdiction” is NOT QUALIFIED in the 14th Amendment, and, therefore, the 14th means FULL JURISDICTION.
Illegal aliens et al. are subject to merely TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION and are not SUBJECT TO THE FULL JURISDICTION; ergo, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Next question?
A lawbreaker is willingly NOT subjecting themselves to the laws (and therefore jurisdiction of those laws), so crossing the border illegally is a declaration that they are not subjecting (yielding) themselves to the law and are intentionally not including themselves into our lawful jurisdiction.
Really? By definition:
Jurisdiction refers to the official legal authority of a government, court, or law enforcement agency to interpret, apply, and enforce the law. It also defines the specific geographic territory or the types of legal disputes over which that authority may be exercised
The only people not subject to the Jurisdiction of the US within the US are certain diplomats. If the court can arrest you, try you, and sentence you, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Interesting defense of the recent violence committed by democrats you have there. Think it’ll hold up in court?
New name for you: Hyperbolic guy.
Democrats don’t like guns, remember? 14th amendment about to be clarified. US is not magic birth soil so go home.
and you BETTER follow the US laws even though you apparently don’t want to.
The 6 conservatives on the court now were all ‘vetted’ by Leonard Leo and sponsored by the Koch network of billionaires.
The Black Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights vetted and sponsored Ketanji-Jackson
https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/
Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan vetted and sponsored Sotomayor because he wanted a Hispanic woman on the Court
so what was your point again?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan died years ago. Not sure what you’re babbling about.
clown, Moynihan is the one who pushed Sotomayor’s name into federal court nomination, just as I said.
Must’ve been before he died, eh?
“So it was that Moynihan selected the 37-year-old Sotomayor—and (as his aides would recount years later) he did so in the conviction that he was setting her on the path to the Supreme Court.”
https://www.confirmationtales.com/p/clearing-the-path-for-sotomayors
Go away clown.
Bigotry ruling America:
Check out your statement “Anon 11:48” and compare it to clear bigotry (or call it master race reparation).
1. “Black Lawyers Committee” : “White Lawyers Committee”
2. “wanted a Hispanic Woman on the Court” : “wanted a White man on the Court”
3. “Black Lives Matter” : “White Lives Matter”
4. “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP)” : “National Association for the Advancement of White People”
all of these are blatant bigotry on both sides of the colon. On which side of bigotry do YOU stand?
Good. Nice to know they were vetted.
Trump Quietly Caves To Dairy Farmers
The Trump administration opened a new legal pathway for migrant farm workers, yielding to an aggressive lobbying campaign by the dairy industry and upsetting immigration enforcement hard-liners.
The administration announced in an agency memo that it would allow dairy farms to bring in migrant labor, after shelving plans for a more public announcement.
The Trump administration is trying to address mounting dissatisfaction among farmers fed up with soaring fuel prices, tariffs and fertilizer inflation. On Thursday night, Trump hosted farmers at the Rose Garden Club at the White House to shore up support with a key constituency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/27/inside-trump-administrations-move-expand-immigrant-labor-dairy-farmers/
…………………………………………..
It turns out there AREN’T that many Americans ready to take the jobs of immigrants. ..Who knew..?! Certainly Trump didn’t know. But dairy farmers have told him. So Trump is having to backpedal.
This development calls into question the whole argument for mass deportations. It may not be that important.
ILLEGALS still need to go.
Every heard of Green cards.
Typical lying WA post.
Trump now can eliminate green cards at will. Republicans has always hated all non-white immigrants.
again with nothing to back it up sally, slipping, really slipping. put some effort into it for crying out loud.
You have TDS. haha bet it sucks.
DustOff,
Correct. Illegals do need to go.
And what the WaPo fails to mention is the coming and in some cases already here, robotics on farms replacing the illegals.
There is a dairy farm next county over using robotics to milk his cows.
Is Trump agreeing these migrant farm workers will have legal status, or work illegally? Does Trump care what the 1986 Immigration Reform Law says?? I doubt it. He thinks “I decide the law through deals”.
Trump is focused on removing criminal illegal aliens. He stated that if farmers take responsibility for those they hire to ensure they’re not criminals, their farms will be exempt from enforcement raids for now. He is also expanding H-2A to include dairy farms.
The agriculture sector has a legitimate shortage of workers – they aren’t trying to replace citizens in the workforce with lower-wage foreign workers.
You see, this is what you anti-Trump clowns try to do every day on this blog. HERE is what REALLY happened.
(It was simply to address the burden of farmers having to renew seasonal worker permits for year-round dairy needs. You truly are foolish to think we believe your junk.)
“Federal officials said the change does not create a new visa category or alter statutory requirements; rather, it provides additional guidance on how existing law should be applied to dairy-related work. Employers must still show that their need for workers is limited in duration and that they meet all other H-2A requirements, including efforts to recruit U.S. workers.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture welcomed the move, saying it provides dairy operators with greater certainty about how they may access the program while maintaining existing labor protections. In a statement, the department said dairy businesses would be subject to the same rules as other H-2A employers and that applications would continue to be reviewed individually.”
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-immigration-visas-h2a-dairy-industry-changes-12091614
Stop polluting this blog with your anti-trump adminstration garbage.
Temporary and seasonal isn’t what applies to dairy farms. The need is continuous and year around.
did you happen to read the THIRD SENTENCE right above you before you replied with your dumb comment?
What worries me most about this new wave of court packing talk is not just the proposal itself. It is how far the political class has gone in saying the quiet part out loud. First they test the water with “reform” talk and vague language about making the Court more “representative.” They watch to see if anyone outside the constitutional law crowd pushes back. When there is no loud, emphatic “no, that line is off limits,” they learn that the guardrails are soft and the public does not know the difference.
Now they feel comfortable tying court expansion directly to permanent policy control and openly talking about using structural change so they “never lose another election.” They treat the Supreme Court as a partisan obstacle instead of a constitutional brake. I do not think the average American consciously wants to hand any party permanent control over the levers of power. I do think many have never been taught what these institutions are for or how separation of powers protects them. That is the ignorance the radicals are counting on. If we do not rebuild that basic constitutional reflex, the people least constrained by principle will keep pushing until the experiment in ordered liberty is something we remember rather than live.
Olly: “They treat the Supreme Court as a partisan obstacle instead of a constitutional brake.”
An excellent sentence (and sentiment).
Exactly right.
This is the most important and profound response I have seen here.
Why do you think the Totalitarian Left has controlled and destroyed public education in the USA?
It was precisely to manufacture the public ignorance (re protection the separation of powers provides, etc) you rail [correctly] against and that they are relying on.
I see no reason whatsoever to expand SCOTUS. None.
As our population increases (as well as concomitant caseloads), our appellate Circuit courts already- and increasingly rely on three-justice panels to handle most of the cases,– which in turn, simply creates yet another level of petition for en banc review. With an expansion of SCOTUS, there has been talk of likewise empaneling three-member justices to first adjudicate matters before the Court. Again, there is a likelihood that many of those decisions will end up with petitions for en banc SCOTUS decisions. Many litigants are already often waiting YEARS for finality of judgment–and that final decision comes from a majority of NINE final jurists ostensibly representing the top and most prudent minds.
If we can just focus on nominating and appointing the very best, the creme de la creme of jurist nominees- based on MERIT, character, and jurisprudential history, –and NOT on race or gender (why should/would female or Black status make a difference in ruling on our country’s constitutional and statutory LAW?), we should be just fine. My motto: Nine is Fine.
thus spake lin. Thank you.
Truth be told.
Almost nobody in political office still believes in the core precept of democracy — a well informed public gets to make the policy choices they deem best suited to the times. The political activists and wealthy classes?…they get 1 vote each as individuals, and any conniving games they concoct to expand their impact on the vote outcome are counter-democratic corruption.
We’re talking about gerrymandering, sending mail-in ballots to every registered voter, adding Washington DC and Puerto Rico as new states, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, nationalizing federal election administration, making it harder for the opposition party’s loyalists to vote, packing the Supreme Court so that activist lawyers control policy.
Both Republican and Democrat Parties are guilty of forsaking the Power of the People to independently decide policy.
Each wants its own elites in control of policy, and so diddling with electoral processes to make that happen is what it’s all about now.
Congress is a potted plant as far as churning out effective policy in realtime. All they care about is getting reelected.
Neither Party trusts the electorate to decide wisely after putting forth honest proposals and authentic plans. Instead, they mostly berate the opposition as “a threat to democracy”, having themselves overstepped their role by corruptly jiggering the vote outcome anyway they can get away with.
If only one of the Parties were corrupt in this way, we the voters could punish them by voting for the ethical Party into power. But, since both Parties are gaming the vote, we unintentionally reward bad behavior when casting our vote.