Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent decision of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to join the ranks of Democrats calling for packing the Supreme Court. It is a disappointing moment for many of us who hoped that Shapiro could offer a moderate voice in the upcoming elections, resisting the rise of socialists and communists in his party. Instead, he proved to be just another politician thinking of the next election rather than the next generation.
Here is the column:
Gov. Josh Shapiro (D. Pa.) has finally reached his Terry Malloy moment. In the classic movie, On the Waterfront, the character tells his brother of losing it all; his shot to be a champion and a person of respect: “You don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could’ve been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.”
Shapiro decided to deliver his defining moment on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” when he abandoned all principle and decided to join other Democratic establishment leaders in offering up the Supreme Court to the radical left. Shapiro used the common coded reference to court packing, calling for “radical reform of the Court.” The only “radical” reform being seriously discussed is packing the institution with an immediate liberal majority to reverse a series of recent decisions and to greenlight an equally radical agenda for changes to our political system.
What is so disappointing is that Shapiro could have truly been a contender, an alternative to the cringing, accommodating politicians who are yielding to the demands of the mob. Figures from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg have recently embraced the scheme to show their bona fides to a rising socialist and radical movement in the Democratic Party.
Shapiro could have been different. He could have offered the country moderation and pushed back on the radical elements of his party. Shapiro was reportedly rejected as a vice presidential candidate due to being Jewish and is a member of a party that is careening toward open anti-Semitism. He could have been that mature voice in his party cautioning restraint before destroying one of our core institutions.
Instead, he chose to just be another bum in American politics.
Shapiro told MS NOW:
“I think we need radical reform that’s actually going to ensure that the voices of the people are heard from, that the voices of the people are represented in the three branches of government. We don’t have that right now.”
The comment echoes the remarks of other court-packers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who insisted the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.”
The Supreme Court was never designed to be the “voice of the people.” On the contrary, it was meant to be a countermajoritarian check on the people’s impulse. It is that body that is designed to stand against the majority to protect minority interests and to maintain a constitutional system meant to blunt popular impulse.
In my book, Rage and the Republic, I discuss how the Framers sought to avoid a direct democratic system, which had failed repeatedly in history. These systems (based on channeling public demands) became what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.” The Supreme Court plays a vital part in preventing our Republic from destroying itself.
For years, professors and pundits have quietly urged a hostile takeover of the Court to remove the barrier to fundamentally changing our system. Now, on the 250th anniversary of our Republic, they are close to getting their way.
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.”
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.”
Now Shapiro has joined these ignoble ranks.
Shapiro and others are demanding the radical reforms despite the current Court repeatedly ruling against the Trump Administration, including most recently on birthright citizenship. Without acknowledging that the decision again showed the Court’s independence, Shapiro griped, “this case should have taken a nanosecond to decide and it should have been nine nothing.”
What does that mean? Should the courts not have heard arguments, or should the Supreme Court have issued an immediate ruling from the bench during oral arguments?
Nevertheless, that is enough for Shapiro to toss the Court to the mob. It is transparent and frankly pathetic.
Shapiro added that too much power was being given to the Executive Branch. This is a court that just ruled against the President on issues from citizenship to tariffs. It has drawn sharp rebukes from President Trump for curtailing his powers.
Now Shapiro appears ready to repeat his controversial move against his neighbor and exercise a type of adverse possession against the Court. However, he lacks the courage (as do figures like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) to come out and call it court packing. They simply refer to “radical” changes.
It is part of conditioning voters to the type of structural changes contemplated by the left to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” Most voters still oppose court packing. You have to wait until voters are angry enough to take a hammer to a system that remains the oldest, most stable democracy in history.
The Court could well fall in the coming years to this mad frenzy, but it will be preceded by the fall of figures like Josh Shapiro. He and his establishment colleagues are deluding themselves into believing that they will be spared in this mobocracy that they are making.
Refusing to have his state participate in the 250th celebration on the Mall and offering up the Supreme Court will not appease an increasingly violent and anti-Semitic far-left movement.
Despite his own pandering to the mob, the socialists recently chanted “you’re next” when they saw Jeffries’ image on a screen at a New York victory party.
Yesterday’s armchair revolutionaries like Josh Shapiro will soon be treated as today’s reactionaries by the very mob that they are trying to enlist. What will be left is a lament of what Shapiro could have been at this moment in our history. As Terry Malloy said, he “coulda had class. [He] coulda been a contender. [He] could’ve been somebody.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The spread of Islam in the 8th and 9th century was perfected by their call to all conquered people, “Convert or die.” That compelling argument was the beginning of Islam worldwide. A similar call has been made by the Socialist left to all Democrats regarding their politics. And it seems to be working. Almost all have made or are making their conversion. Democrats, you see, want power, and they don’t care what kind it is.
I’m glad he came clean and showed us who he really is. Begone with him. By capitulating on this fundamental issue for the purpose of obtaining power, his paucity of character and honor as a man is revealed. A principled man would get in “the arena” and dare to do the right and hard thing. He is TR’s cold and timid soul. Rather than die trying, he committed political suicide and will be remembered only for this act.
I wonder if Mr Shapiro has truly considered where he is casting his lot. These people he is cozying up to will immediately abandon him at the first opportune moment. He serves the purpose of some legitimacy but that will be only a small and temporary bump for them. He will be cast aside as a no longer useful idiot and will be lucky if he survives this mob personally much less politically.
The democrats see a bleak future ahead of them in the way of legitimacy. Their bench grows thinner and they think only of means to never leave power. A sorry state for a “party of the working class”. They clutch their pearls saying that Obama was so brilliant and gave us so much only see that his accomplishments were built on sand and the people turned against him as early as 2010. The modern Republican Party is a result of Obama. His transformation has fallen flat and his and Biden’s edifice of an all powerful federal government is being deconstructed day by day. Maybe Obama’s popularity now is due to the fact he is not in power and his harm to the nation is limited. He would do well to stay in his flak tower in Chicago.
We just saw an outstanding 4th of July with an incredible outpouring of patriotism. Ask yourselves would it have been so outstanding with Obama, Biden or Kamala in charge . I think not. The democrats mean little failure to show up on the mall to advertise their states was basically a passing glance in the American story as the nation marched on.
Great post, GEB! What I remember most about the Obama presidency is that he said that he wanted to “fundamentally” change America. I had no idea what he had in mind at the time. Now, there are so many young politicians with no meaningful life experience pushing the Democrats on this dangerous trajectory. It’s frightening!
Oh well – both sides are populated with say/do anything politician scumbags because ONLY POWER means anything! With the POWER you can get wealthy(ier) and be set for life!! Once set for life then you can transition to wielding influence and being a king/queen maker. For the politician types they are like sleazebag celebrities – good/bad/ugly press does not matter – what matters is being relevant, noticed, and EL HEFE!! Never going to change for FAME WHORES!
The CEO co-founder of the federalist has called for court packing after the recent ruling. Turley has been strangely silent about that. No surprise there.
Maybe because Shapiro’s comments are more important than …?
George, you really do surprise yourself a lot.
Looks like your AI is down this morning.
X – no one believes you. When you say something and do not quote it an link to a primary source – all here KNOW you are lying.
Regardless, The federalist is not a Democrat governor and a serious 2028 presidential candidate.
There are some on the right calling for “court packing” – as a preemptive reaction to the left.
Regardless Conservatives have NEVER lead the charge to “pack the court” – in the 30’s that was democrats.
Now it is democrats.
YOU OWN this issue.
“ There are some on the right calling for “court packing” – as a preemptive reaction to the left.”
You looked it up. LOL!
You know it’s true that the CEO of the Federalist did call for court packing. Hilarious.
Sean Davis demanded Trump pack the court now. Before democrats do it later.
awn… One person, big deal
More on the supposed socialism of nordic countries
A frustrated conservative writes an article that the conservative movement almost completely rejects, and you want Turley to respond. Why? Is Turley supposed to respond to every goofy comment made by an editorialist? If he did that, he would be responding to hundreds of leftist comments a day.
Understand the difference between frustrated and goofy. The CEO was frustrated; you’re goofy.
Josh Shapiro did not give up his principles on Morning Joe. He revealed his principles: Say and do anything, to accumulate power in politics. He did what President George Washington told us politicians do, in his Farewell Address.
Can anyone point to specific references by Shapiro to court packing?!
How can Turley make this claim without them?
“Radical reform” could mean term limits for example. Without the specifics, this post is fear mongering of the type Turley claims to detest.
It does not matter precisely what Shapiro means.
In fact “court packing” could be less extreme than his intentions – Shapiro chose the phrase “Radical Reform” – that is by defnition a significant departure from what is – it does not mean term limits – unless Shapiro is prone to fits of wild exageration.
Regardless, Turley is correct. Shapiro has been viewed by ,many as a potential voice of sanity in the Democratic party.
He won in a purple state – while there is a great deal of anger in PA over his broken promise of support for school choice
there was still some perception that Shapiro had some ability to reach across the aisles.
Clearly he is abandoning any such pretense.
Shapiro is in favor of term limits. That is actually a reasonable position. Many states supreme courts are term limited. Or retained by voters every 4 years in some states.
Turley has floated his own court expansion idea over a 20 year time frame.
When Turley says the court should not be dictated by popular opinion he is right. Unfortunately even conservatives expect the court to rule based on conservative public opinion. Justice Barrett has been eviscerated by conservatives for doing her job instead the conservative mob’s desire.
“Shapiro is in favor of term limits. That is actually a reasonable position.”
Correct – it is NOT radical reform – and Shapiro chose the words radical reform.
Regardless term limits require a constitutional amendment – that MIGHT fly – but not stand alone.
Propose a sonstitutional term limits amendment – and you will get term limits for all elected officials.
“Many states supreme courts are term limited. Or retained by voters every 4 years in some states.”
Correct – those are not radical reforms. They are however bad ideas.
“Turley has floated his own court expansion idea over a 20 year time frame.”
Correct – not radical reform. Turley is also mistaken.
The worst thing you could do to the court is make it larger – productivity declines with the number of people in a decision making body.
If you want SCOTUS top hear less cases and produce more muddled opinions – expand the court.
I do not expect democrats to actually pack the court. Because it will not work. The best they can hope for is to stem the shift to more constitutionally sound decisions.
It will get very little of their agenda through the courts – Getting 5 of 9 people to agree is much easier than 7 of 13.
“When Turley says the court should not be dictated by popular opinion he is right. Unfortunately even conservatives expect the court to rule based on conservative public opinion. Justice Barrett has been eviscerated by conservatives for doing her job instead the conservative mob’s desire.”
Absolutely – but Conservatives did NOT turn the issue of court packing into a presidential platform item.
Everyone expects the court to rule based on their personal prefered outcome – that has been true for 250 years. Justices that do not do so – particularly those that were pivotal in a decision and were presumed to be ideologically supportive – will ALWAYS get flack from their own side.
If you do not have the ability to stand up to that – do not accept a supreme court nomination.
That said no one on the right is SWATTING Barrett that was the left.
Term limits are not a magical panacea to all that ails our current political system, contrary to what some would apparently like to believe. They come with the serious risk that those we elect could be no more than serial puppets of behind the scene interests who are even less accountable to the electorate than the jerks we revile today. I am very skeptical that the solution, if there actually is one, would be that easy.
There are no magical solutions – and much of what is likely to have popular appeal will make things worse not better.
The structure of our constitution is to make it very very hard to excercise federal power.
That constantly infuriates people – right and left trying to do something they beleive is good – or even something that truly is good – such as the save act.
“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Impediments to power – even what those who share our views see as Good uses of power should be left alone.
I personally favor term limits of the form – No more than 25 years of public service TOTAL – not as an elected official, not as a judge not as a bureaucrat.
But I am not blind to the fact that term limits can be both good and bad.
So Shapiro used rhetorical flourishing. Turley is pushing hard to portray Shapiro’s rhetoric as extreme. It’s not. Term limits for SCOTUS is perfectly reasonable. To conservatives, anything reasonable is too radical.
Expanding the Court would actually increase the number of cases it can hear and clear up legal muddiness, not the other way around. We already have good examples.
The Federal Appeals Courts have up to 29 judges (like the 9th Circuit). They do not suffer from ‘declining productivity’ because they hear cases in three-judge panels.
If SCOTUS were expanded, it could adopt a panel system. Instead of nine justices trying to argue over one case, three separate panels of five justices could hear three different cases at the same time. This would triple the court’s capacity to hear cases.
Right now, the Supreme Court hears fewer than 80 cases a year out of thousands of requests. Because they hear so few cases, lower courts across the country often interpret federal laws in completely contradictory ways for years before SCOTUS finally steps in to fix it. A larger court using panels could take on more cases, resolve these national legal contradictions much faster, and provide more clarity to the public, not less.
Besides, the Supreme Court has been expanded and shrunk seven times in American history—ranging from 6 to 10 justices. The shift to 9 justices in 1869 was a political choice for that era, not a magic number dictated by maximum human productivity.
“Expanding the Court would actually increase the number of cases it can hear and clear up legal muddiness, not the other way around. ”
ROFL
“The Federal Appeals Courts have up to 29 judges (like the 9th Circuit).”
courtS – not court – as you note they sit on 3 judge panels – not 9 justices hearing a case.
There are approx 800 Federal judges – we need more,. There are about 800 federal immigration judge – we need more.
I have already argued that we should have a Federal “superior court” sitting between the supreme court and the federal district appeals courts.
There is NO single federal apeals court – except the supreme court.
Put as many judges onm the “federal; superior court” as you wish – but stick top 3-5 judge panels. The more judges who hear a single case – the less productive they will be.
That is a KNOW FACT – and not just for judges.
” They do not suffer from ‘declining productivity’ because they hear cases in three-judge panels.”
So now you want to make TWO changes to the supreme court – not one – you want to pack it and then slice it up
Those federal apeals courts with 3 judge panels also introduce the ability to ask for an en banc review.
Are you going to have 3 judge panels on a 15 justice supreme court hear cases and then have the entire 15 justices hear appeals ?
There is a small number of cases that the constitution and federal law require the US supreme court to hear.
Are you going to say that a 3 judge panel is sufficient ?
What are you going to do when a panel with Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas does something you do not like ?
Do you appeal it to the en banc court ? Or does it become the law of the land and final supreme court precident ?
The US supreme court does not do “panels” – because its decisions can only be overturned by future supreme courts – and then only rarely.
The final word of the supreme court is the final word on the law and constitution absent a constitutional amendment.
WE NEED THAT
There are only a tiny portion of cases SCOTUS is required toi hear. – the results of your case unjust ? Tough – SCOTUS will hear that case ONLY if they think it is important. Otherwise you rot. There is no RIGHT to a hearing before the supreme court.
3 justice panels do not cut it – they are fine for lower courts – like I said – add layers below the supreme court. No problem with that.
But the supreme court is for the FINAL word on the constitution – to the extent possible they MUST speak with the largest possible voice.
It would be great if all decisions were 9-0 and a surprising number are. The weaker a decision the less guidance it offers to the country.
“If SCOTUS were expanded, it could adopt a panel system. Instead of nine justices trying to argue over one case, three separate panels of five justices could hear three different cases at the same time. This would triple the court’s capacity to hear cases.”
a panel is NOT THE SUPREME COURT.
Adding judges moire judges nationwide would increase the number of cases that could be heard.
While that has not been done for some time – Supreme court judges used to hear cases as individual judges.
Those decisions are NOT supreme court decisions – panel decisions are not supreme court decisions.
The cases that make the news MUST all be heard by the entire court – however big you make it. It MUST be clear that no random panel selection process dictated the outcome. That is fine for an ordinary apelate court. It is NOT ok for the final word on the constitution.
“Right now, the Supreme Court hears fewer than 80 cases a year out of thousands of requests. ”
That is only the cases that are granted oral arguments – Nearly every case offered to SCOTUS gets some review.
That reveiw may be as simple as – we do not care enough to hear this case. It may be a shadow docket reverse and remand.
It may be the justice for that district issuing an order.
“Because they hear so few cases, lower courts across the country often interpret federal laws in completely contradictory ways for years before SCOTUS finally steps in to fix it.”
Not if they follow the rules of statutory and constitutional construction.
Regardless SCOTUS is not there to hear every case from everyone who wants an appeal.
SCOTUS decides when the lower court issues are worth addressing.
” A larger court using panels could take on more cases, resolve these national legal contradictions much faster, and provide more clarity to the public, not less.”
Nope – if the case is not heard by the entire supreme court – then the result is no different from the highest apeals court below the supreme court.
Just as apelate courts accross the country can disagree – a supreme court panel arangement will just produce more splits – not less.
“Besides, the Supreme Court has been expanded and shrunk seven times in American history—ranging from 6 to 10 justices. The shift to 9 justices in 1869 was a political choice for that era, not a magic number dictated by maximum human productivity.”
Correct, even numbers are a bad choice – they produce more split decisions that do NOT settle questions.
Larger numbers produce more concurrences and plurality decisions. 9 is sub optimal for productivity and clarity – 7 is better – 5 is even more productive.
But you really want more than 3 justices in the majority to have finality on an issue – so 7 is worse for productivity – but better for finality.
9 is loo large.
But I am not demanding that 2 justices get thrown off the court because 7 would be better.
YUou ARE demanding to change the court based on really poor arguments.
When people have weak arguments it pretty much ALWAYS means something else is driving them – like the hope that packing the court will result in decisions you like better.
The goal is decisions that follow the constitution better – not that you like better.
These lifetime appointments have proved dangerous. They seem to stay forever.
It should matter what Shapiro means. If Turley says Shapiro wants court packing and Shapiro has never advocated for that, then this entire post is misleading.
Shapiro wants radical reform – it does not matter whether that is court packing or the political impeachment of justices for wrong think.
The court is not in need of “radical reform” of anykind. Frankly the supreme court itself is not in need of ANY reform.
Yes, words should matter. The opening sentence of Turley’s post:
“Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent decision of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to join the ranks of Democrats calling for packing the Supreme Court.”
There is NO evidence that he has done this. Turley is not saying he THINKS Shapiro wants to pack the Court. He is saying that he is responding to news that Shapiro has advocated for packing the Court. That is factually incorrect.
it is so concerning that no one cares what Turley actually writes. If Turley concluded that… Rubio wants to “invade China” because he advocated for a radical reform to our foreign policy with China, it would be equally problematic.
“There is NO evidence that he has done this.”
BS.
He uses the expression “radical reform,” which is a well-known generality that *includes* packing the court.
But if you’re stunted by a literal mind, try this:
Shapiro was asked, on the very same MS NOW program Turley cites, whether he’s in favor of *court packing*. He replied:
“I think we need to be open to all of that and more.”
Can you please provide a link to the video and the timestamp or the transcript?
I find this hard to believe, but I will retract if it does exist. Why would Turley imply it with a separate quote rather than include that direct quote?
“Can you please provide a link to the video and the timestamp or the transcript?”
Sure. As soon as I’m your paid research assistant.
Short of that, it took me all of 2 minutes to find the quote. The cite to the program is in JT’s post.
ATS – not interested in nit picking and word games with the left.
You wish to claim Turley was opverly specific about a generalized remark from Shapiro – fine.
Shapiro called for Radical reform – NOT INTERESTED.
Nothing “radical” from democrats has ever been good.
Radical reform of foreign policy does NOT include invading China. Rubio is the Sec. State – not the Sec. War.
The US has not “invaded” anywhere is more than a century. Trump may be willing to flex our Military might more than anyone expected,
But Trump is so far unwilling ot put boots on the ground anywhere. The 82nd airborne and a marine amphibious group were set to Iran – they did NOTHING.
Their presence was at most a threat that Iranians had to deploy forces to respect.
The US is not invading anyone – and no one is advocating that.
You might as well say that Rubio’s radical reform of foriegn policy towards china – including deploying flying monkeys with rainbow flags.
Packing the Supreme court is a reasonable read of Shapiros remarks – it is increasingly Democrat catachism.
Invading China is not a republican offering – even from the most radical.
Turley erred in directly equating radical reform of SCOTUS with court packing – it is possible that Shapiro meant something different and far worse – like impeaching justices over ideology. What is not possible is that Shapiro meant something minor – Radical does not mean Minor.
Socialists speak in code: “radical reform” includes Court packing. If Socialists ever told the truth about their pernicious plans, very few would embrace them. Mamdani refers to the “warmth of collectivism”, knowing full well that Socialism brings nothing but slavery and misery. People need to read more history. But even worse, the anti-American Left cannot point to another country that is any better than ours. They seek unattainable perfection, which is the enemy of the good.
If this article were about “Socialists” then fine. But Turley writes about Shapiro specifically.
Radical is radical – does not matter if it is court packing, impeachment for wrong think or assassination – still all wrong.
“If Socialists ever told the truth about their pernicious plans, very few would embrace them.”
Exactly.
That’s why the call it “agrarian reform,” instead of: Let’s collectivize farming and kill millions.
That’s why they call them “re-education camps,” instead of concentration camps for political dissidents.
That’s why they all it stamping out “disinformation,” instead of censorship.
Packing the Court can be done by legislation. All other so called reforms, such as term limits, would require a constitutional amendment. Turley is correct on all counts. Shapiro has forfeited his integrity in the futile hope that he can lead the mob.
I think you are making my point for me. Is radical change the one that is simply accomplished through legislation?
Why don’t you lift a leg and do it yourself. It’s very satisfying.
“Without the specifics, this post is fear mongering of the type Turley claims to detest.”
That you cannot unpack the meaning of “radical reform,” a well-known democrat generalization, is your intellectual failure — not JT’s
The only Democrat with courage is John Fetterman. How that party has fallen straight into Fascism.
Hear! Hear!
I first thought Fetterman was a real piece of work due to Tucker Carlsons reporting. He was portrayed as a far left loser sitting on his Daddy’s money. After winning his seat he has shown to be very intelligent, knowledgeable about history, politics and America. He’s not a Socialist nor do I believe he supports that type of platform. He’s the last of the Blue dogs, similar to Tulsi Gabbard.
Pennsylvania is atleast partly a “rust belt” state Fetterman is part of that blue collar democrat tradition.
He is not a republican – though he might end up there eventually. But he is also not a left wing nut
and then again, he’s not a Democrat. That fascism thing, what do you think the Republicans are? Just asked for a friend.
You wouldn’t know Fascism if Benito Mussolini bit you in the arse.
Anger issues so early? You wouldn’t know Fascism if Benito Mussolini bit you in the arse. So says the stupid one himself. A
🤣🤣Says Annoying us…that says Rebulicans are Fascists🤣
Eightball,
I agree! That is pretty funny!
Fascism
Everything in the state
nothing outside the state
nothing against the state
Benito Mussolini
Shapiro, et al, are current-day Mensheviks. Pathetic.
A regular Trotsky he is!
Fetterman is the only Democrat who isn’t scared of the mob.
They will probably get their chance to take full power. Even if Trump is able to keep the economy firing on all cylinders for 2028 to elect his successor, there is bound to be a big recession by 2032, and present overinflated markets will make the next recession a doozy. AOC will probably take Chucko’s Senate seat in 2028, and run for Prez in 2032.
Contra left wing nuts – Markets do not cause recessions or depressions. They are a reflection of the economy itself.
There is about $200B in Investment flowing into the US each month right now – that is what the markets are reflecting.
That investing is coming in partly because of what Trump is doing, but mostly because the US is the safest place to invest in the world today. Europe has massive problems. It has had protracted pathetic growth with no prospect of change,
Most European countries are “deindustrializing” – they do not have the people to fill blue collar jobs, and they have castrated their own energy systems. Not only are the problems in Europe significant – but fixing them will take many many years,
and worse still – the shifting politics of Europe are headed in the wrong direction.
Immigration is a far bigger problem in Europe than the US – there is more pent up anger against it, it is more disruptive of european culture – europeans contra to what they have sold the left over decades are far more racist than americans and they have far less experience with diversity and on top of this – Europe is solidly into negative population growth. Without massive immigration their economies MUST decline.
These are just a FEW of the reasons that investment is flowing into the US.
We have many problems – but we are head and shoulders a safer place to invest than Europe.
The US has problems too – The US is “reindustrializing” We are building factories – but more automated ones. The next generation of blue collar workers must be significantly higher skill
AI is going to be a change much like the industrial revolution – and no one is better placed for it than the US – we have the expertise, We have the workforce that can make use of AI, we have the energy infrastructure. But AI will be extremely disruptive. The US also have negative population growth issues – but not even close to those of Europe.
In the long run the US is going to have to accept more legal immigrants – but despite the current backlash against illegal immigration – the US is still much more diverse and much more capable of absorbing immigrants than Europe.
The US is in the early stages of what is likely to be a protracted boom. The world is also in the midst of a massive political and economic restructuring. The western hemisphere and the Pacific rim are likely to be the center of the economic world for the next half century.
Europe is outside of that, They missed the wave and it is too late to catch it.
With certainty there will be economic adjustments in the US.
With respect to things like a possible tech stock collapse – recessions and depressions result when there is malinvestment in Long term assests. The great depression – was not caused by the stock market crash – the stock market crash was caused by the realization that the US had built vastly more production capacity than we could possibly consume. There was also a concurrent housing bubble – much like we had in 2008.
We had a tech crash in the early 2000’s that was not even an economic speed bump. It is not the size of the misinvestment that matters – it is WHERE it is.
Right now the US has an undersupply of housing, and an undersupply of industry – no matter what happens with those stock prices, you will not get a recession or depression from them.
“The Supreme Court was never designed to be the “voice of the people.” On the contrary, it was meant to be a countermajoritarian check on the people’s impulse. It is that body that is designed to stand against the majority to protect minority interests and to maintain a constitutional system meant to blunt popular impulse.”
I’d argue neither is the Supreme Court designed to be the tool of political activist lawyers seeking policies that are so unpopular as to have no chance in Congress. Turley’s counter-majoritarian role of the Court plays directly into the hands of these activists, whether we’re talking Plyler v. Doe (liberals) or Dobbs (conservatives).
Beware the mis-framing of majority rule over common-sense policy as “mobocracy”. This euphemism gives comfort to elitist activists and sympathetic Judges intent on jamming policy on the country absent the consent of the governed.
Not a “voice of the people.” You got facts to support that. I mean, you’re not a constitutional lawyer.
The crazies voted for Trump. POTUS can select judges, so how’s that not the “voice of people”?
The courts do not have jursidiction over policy. They have jurisdiction over the Constitution and the law.
They do not get to decide if something is a good idea. They get to decide if it is constitutional and lawful.
You really need to read more about the framing of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is NOT the rubber stamp of ill-informed public opinion. Its only client is the Constitution.
you might want to check the dumb DEI women on the court….who answer only to the DNC
I don’t think they have even READ the Consitutution
Hear Hear!
Good point, and worth sharpening one piece of it. You’re right the Court’s only client is the Constitution, not public opinion, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work. But pack it and you don’t get a court that’s finally listening to public opinion either. You get a court that answers to whoever did the packing. Public opinion still doesn’t matter, it just stops even pretending to matter. At least right now the Court can be accused of ignoring the mob. Once it’s packed, there’s no mob to ignore, there’s just the people who own the bench.
For a lifetime…
One expects more from the self-hating Jewish man? He built his career on lies
.. Just what a demon-o-crat does…
Ask Trump. On lies … what politician hasn’t.
If one compares the fundamental positions of the Democratic Party with those of the Democratic Socialist Party the single difference is that the Socialists are honest about hating the state of Israel. Democrats are not!
The DSA shares a desire to render the Constitution a dead letter with the establishment Dems by packing SCOTUS. They also want to install a permanent single party rule with themselves holding all 3 branches of government effectively an authoritarian state. Where the Dems have been somewhat reticient to say the quiet out loud, the DSA isn’t so circumspect about their goals. The will succeed without firing a shot if the country doesn’t wake up to the threat and vote.
The Dums big coup would be to get Sapiro to join the anti semite rage.
Background… Historical and Current Context Congress has altered the Court’s size seven times in history, most recently setting it at nine justices via the Judiciary Act of 1869. Recent proposals, such as the Judiciary Act introduced by Ed Markey and Hank Johnson, seek to add four seats to create a 13-justice court, while a 2024 bill by Ron Wyden proposed expanding it to 15 justices over three presidential terms.
The reason for these past expansions was that Supreme Court justices also functioned as Circuit judges. The growth of circuit courts required expanding the SC (as travel in these days was time consuming). The SC justices no longer have that double role. Thus, the historical record of change (which by the way shows no change in the last 157 years) is not a good argument for expanding the court.
Since the Democrats are so hell bent on expanding the court, let’s give It’s to them now
Let the Gop expand the court since we control both houses of Congress and the presidency
Finally, the Democrats will get their dream
Think… Legislative Steps To enact expansion, proponents must navigate the following procedural hurdles:
Pass the bill with a majority vote in the House of Representatives.
Secure 60 votes in the Senate to end debate (cloture), followed by a simple majority for final passage.
Obtain the President’s signature; if vetoed, Congress must override it with a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers.
See any problems?
WRONG! They only need 51 votes to end the filibuster and then 51 votes to pack the Court. 5o votes if they win in the WH in 2028.
Okay, then prove it stupid.
hullbobby gone full stupid at 7AM folks. Typical day on the blog. Gezzzz….
Hungover as usual…
HB my understanding is that it would take 2/3 of the 100 Senate seat for an amendment to pass. I think the 51 would be the number to the place each justice. Not sure where the nuclear option, veto power and other legal maneuvering would come into play but it would.
They need 60 votes to end a fillibuster. They need 51 votes to change the rules regarding the filibuster.
I do NOT support ending the filibuster.
I completely support making democrat conduct a standing filibuster until the screw up or give up.
A filibuster can end when there is a vote to end debate.
It can also end when the person with the floor fails to continue to hold the floor.
Bring the SAVE ACT tot he floor – let democrats read the phone book if they wish. But make them continue the debate – day and night.
Let the american people know who stands for what.
Correct. The true weakness in the Senate that only a simple majority is needed to change the rules. This is how Harry Reid ended the filibuster to pack the DC courts to protect the passage of Obamacare.
Why bother with a legal system?
Why bother with a comments section?
Then why are you making comments?
I’m still wondering why Trump isn’t doing this for them? He should immediately appoint four additional judges to SCOTUS, raising the number to 13 and ideally raising the number of conservatives (depending on the issue) from 6 to 10.
There are not 60 votes in the senate.
13 — 12 justices and one chief justice…
9 is fine
Unlucky 13
Insanity has seized the Democratic party. It seem to be a lot more of a communicable disease than Covid. Sadly there is no cure.
Cure? Sure. Cut out the diseased parts.
Immorality has seized the dems, anon. Don’t leave out void virtues and mountainous vice. Some vice unheard-of is being ushered in, anon.
All of the dems have gone to the dark side.
Into your bizarro world then eh.
no he meant they are all turning into murderous commies.
Meant? Then why didn’t he write that?
DustOff,
I think they have have to. They need young peoples votes and those young people are leaning towards socialism/DSA. So, Democrats are pandering to the very mob they created thinking after the mid-terms and maybe 2028 they can discard the DSA, pack the court and ensure Republicans never win again.
The DSA has other ideas about the establishment Democrats and the party.
We thought the far leftists have taken over the party? Nope! Sit back and watch as the socialists take over the Democrat party and they discard the establishment.
Does socialism lack freedom?
Consider the Rawandan pygmy population fleeing into Congo only to be eaten. It was ceremonial only. I guess ceremonial makes a difference, Dustoff.