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.”
I already detested Josh Shapiro because he is a neocon warmonger, pro Ukraine war, pro Israel attacking its neigbhors, he is a warmonger’s tool and should be cancelled.
Sal Sar
He was never a “moderate.” He just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child
Well, it was fun. but not anymore.
_____________________________
Establishment Democrats’ support for Graham Platner is cratering. A woman came forward on Monday who accused the Democrat Senate candidate from Maine of raping her five years ago while they were dating. Platner, whose campaign has been rocked by scandals, recently assured Democrats that there were no more on the horizon. Oopsie!
It cracks me up, that he, as a Jew, thinks they don’t hate HIM. Josh already had his Governor Mansion attacked with his family sleeping inside, yet thinks he can make them happy by agreeing with them, when they don’t care…they will get him too. Mr Shapiro needs to get ahold of reality.
Berlin 1933
Hence, building a 5 million mosque in Philly for the very people who wish him dead! Not a smart man, for sure!!!
Professor…..This is one of your BEST posts, ever!
I beg to differ. His best post would have, could have, should have been about the repeal of the 17th Amendment. That fact alone would have stopped stupid talk about packing the court and doing away with the electoral college. It was supposed to be people had the house, states had the senate and we all had the executive and judicial branches. Now, with states out of the picture that body gets packed with the Kamalas, wannabe Indians like Elizabeth Warren, wannabe Vietnam vets like Richard Blumenthal, fake patriots who talk one way on the campaign trail and do a complete double cross in the Senate, and a lot of other fakes and what that means is this, if the communists finally do take over, kiss the republic goodbye.
he might be a nice Jewish boy, but anyone standing with the organized crime racket known as the democrat Party is immediately covered in BM.
by the way, as to your use of ‘On the Waterfront’…Elia Kazan named names before the HUAC during the ‘Hollywood Ten’ hearings about Communists in Hollywood, making himself a permanent pariah in Hollywood even up to this day. the salient point of the movie is Terry yelling, “I’m GLAD I told!” referring to dropping a dime on Rod Steiger, his mobbed-up brother.
that’s the reason for the movie. further, Arthur Miller begged to disagree, and so he wrote ‘A View From the Bridge’ in which the older brother is condemned for telling the immigration authorities about his sister’s illegal hunky boyfriend to get him deported. that’s the point of that play: you don’t tell!
interesting, eh wot?
https://youtube.com/shorts/pN_sg8HmgYA?is=fF-jNPMYQBwypIs3
This is what surrender looks like, Josh.
When we discuss what the founders may or may not have thought, a refer reference to the Federalist Papers might be useful.
“[A] limited Constitution…can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing…To deny this would be to affirm…that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
*. The people visiting the US for games posted many you tube videos. They were enthralled eating the foods. Chicken fried steak and BBQ beef were hits. The abundance seemed to be unimaginable and they loved the US. They enjoyed their visit.
Americans being gracious. ☺
They also enjoyed seeing many parts of America.
I wonder how many checked into a US hospital to deliver and take back home a little bundle of American citizenship?
The Maltese Falcon–the stuff dreams are made of.
The Duchess
According to EMT reports McConnell was found unresponsive and required CPR.
No updates on his condition, and rumors are flying that he is brain dead and being kept alive on life support.
If he is he is brain dead, then of course he is still functioning at his normal level.
So funny I forgot to laugh.
I guess this is the “normal level” of liberal lack of wittiness.
You failed to post this report. Could it be because they just don’t release these.
Was the EMT level 1, 3 or 3.
Speaking of collapse, McConnell seems to have not only been removed from the gaming table he’s been removed from Trump’s little black heart.
^ Call a waaaaambulance for this poor baby ^
And what was Elaine doing with the CCP in China 3 days after her husband applied for membership at the hospital?
Turley’s references to “On The Waterfront” are convoluted. Only someone determined to make a movie comparison would have shoe-horned such a link.
Turley’s comparison reminds me of the Frank Sinatra movie, “Man With The Golden Arm”. There was that scene where Sinatra’s character, a drummer addicted to heroin, goes to audition for a jazz group. But his hands are so shaky he fumbles the drumsticks.
Turley is like Sinatra’s drummer. His hands are shaky at the computer keyboard as he strains to think of famous movie characters to link Josh Shapiro with. So Turley drums out, “On The Waterfront” with the hope that Estovir’s sock puppets will make the link stick.
Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle. What movie analogy or comparison would you have made.
If you include this kind of information, your comments will be much more interesting to read. As it is, they come across as bitter and mean-spirited. Of course, perhaps that’s your goal. Experience on this blog teaches that that is, in fact, the goal of many anonymous commenters. But perhaps not. How you respond to this response will show what your goal really is.
Old Man, there’s no comparison between Shapiro and Brando’s character. More than half the country views the court’s Federalists as tools of far-right, billionaire political donors.
Shapiro is in the mainstream on this.
Anonymous – what do you mean by “Federalists”? Judges who interpret the Constitution according to its text and history, without pretending it is a “living document” that can be judicially altered to fit modern conditions? If half the country finds that extreme, then we are in serious doo-doo.
And are you really that mentally lazy that you can’t come up with a movie title to fit your understanding of the situation. Maybe Mainstream (2020), or The Land of Steady Habits (2018), or The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), or The Truman Show (1998)?
Old Man, the Constitution is like The Bible. Any fool can find a verse to support their ideas no matter how radical.
Anyone who thinks this court has exclusive insight into the constitution is a fool.
I am aware that that is the mantra on the left, but it’s intellectually lazy and dead wrong, as to both the Constitution and the Bible. Otherwise there would be little point in anyone spending time in law school or seminary. In fact, there’s an entire science called hermeneutics in which scholars much brighter than you or me have come up with ways of reliably construing the meaning of texts, whether ancient or only 250 years old. With the Constitution, the relative newness of the document also helps in that we actually have records of debates that accompanied the drafting and ratification of the foundational law, not to mention other comparatively recent historical evidence about what was intended by the words – e.g., laws passed around the same time.
Old Man, every session this court finds excuses to overturn precedent. And typically their excuses are bogus. In almost every case the precedent made more sense. That’s a sign change is needed.
I realize you want change, but saying change is needed is fundamentally inconsistent with your position one comment ago that the Constitution is whatever a fool makes of it.
Saying change is needed means the current group of Scotus judges are getting the Constitution wrong. But to say they’re getting it wrong, is to say that there is a right answer.
OTOH, one comment ago you said that “the Constitution is like the Bible – any fool can find a verse to support their ideas.” Under that view, there is only power. And what you mean is that you want judges to pretend the Constitution means those things that are consistent with my subjective policy preferences, and not those things that are consistent with my opponents’ subjective policy preferences.
Question to some third party: is Anonymous sea-lioning here?
Old Man, at John Roberts confirmation hearing, he actually stressed the importance of upholding precedent. Then Roberts went on to gut multiple precedents.
This court is just doing whatever the hell it pleases while claiming constitutional insight. Any court could do that (if its shameless enough).
You keep shifting the subject. When I point out your logical flaw, you just ignore it and move on to some other topic. I even gave you examples of movie titles you could have used, but you just ignored that.
Roberts was in the minority who thought Roe v Wade should not be overturned. So you have to be specific about which precedent you think he improperly voted to overturn before any rational discussion can occur.
It is also widely acknowledged that the Warren court went hog-wild with inventing new rights and ignoring the actual text of the Constitution. If the current Court corrects some of those errors, that is a good thing. Roe v Wade is a great example. It was an illegitimate decision the moment it was handed down, and its rejection was long overdue.
Ultimately, all arguments you make are meaningless unless you cite the provision of the Constitution that is at issue, and explain which decision misinterpreted it, and why the Court’s intepretation was in error. Everything else is just blowing hot air and making unsubstantied generalizations that are not worth discussing.
My conclusion: at this point, you are definitely sea-lioning. Unless you have a specific decision to discuss, I am done.
Classic oldman move here that he pulls time and time and time again when he realizes he is cornered.
When he realizes he is cornered, he simply disengages and takes on the air of being victorious, even though he he no rational response to offer.
I left the door open for discussion if you had any specific cases or parts of the Constitution you wanted to discuss. I said that I was not willing to continue to engage based solely on generalizations with no meaning. I said that you could prove me wrong about sea-lioning by being specific about what you wanted to talk about. But you chose to prove me right.
In our system SCOTUS justices are never wrong. They are appointed and confirmed by those we elect. Therefore they are doing the will of the people. It doesn’t matter if its Plessey v Ferguson or Roe v Wade. The decisions reflect the will of the people who elected the President and Senators. This produces slow orderly change thus avoiding the violence and bad outcomes of the French Revolution. Our revolution is on going and comparatively peaceful.
Anon, are the dems setting up for a monarchy or dictatorship?
To the contrary. Only fools believe that they can find a verse in the bible or a section of the Constitution to support their ideas no matter how radical.
When you begin with name calling you’ve already lost.
So you are a fool then.
Thanks for providing an example of someone determined to use a movie comparison.
Well one thing is for sure. In the future when someone writes “Profiles in Courage – Vol. 2,” Shapiro won’t be in it. BTW, Josh, you sold your birth right for a cold and empty bowl of porridge. Despite having cratered, the far Leftist you tried to appease won’t like you a speck more. After all, you described the experience of having been “a past volunteer in the Israeli army” when you were younger. That alone will disqualify you for support for any higher position in your wacky party.
CNN – It’s a movement that appears set to push the Democratic Party further to the left. Yet the tenets of socialism — much less democratic socialism — are still far removed from the communist ideology that Trump has loudly, and inaccurately, portrayed as a rising threat.
CNN lies.
Seizing the means of production and seizing private property are not socialist policies, they are communist policies and Mamdani has espoused both.
Zohran Mamdani’s new NYC tenant advocate called to ‘seize private property,’ blasted home-ownership as ‘white supremacy’
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s newly appointed tenant advocate called to “seize private property” and blasted home-ownership as a “weapon of white supremacy” in a series of pro-Communist social media posts.
“Seize private property!” she said on June 13, 2018.
New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani touted his “end goal of seizing the means of production” during a 2021 Young Democratic Socialists of America conference.
And the way in which power engages us now, it is very critical for all of us to remember what it is that we are fighting for, and to remember that our agenda is an agenda that must not be dictated by calculus, but by conviction,” said Mamdani. “And what I mean by that is that the many things that we believe, some of them are already popular in this moment. Right now, if we’re talking about the cancellation of student debt, if we’re talking about Medicare for all ,you know, these are issues which have the groundswell of popular support across this country. But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it’s BDS, right? Or whether it’s ‘the end goal of seizing the means of production’, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.”
All communist are socialist, don’t let the label fool you they are the new Bolsheviks. They will take your property, they will take all your money, they will take your labor and return nothing but repression.