University of Pennsylvania Professor Michael Mann is the Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action and has pushed candidates to commit to major environmental reforms. Notably, he seemed to pivot in an interview with Peter Dominick on a podcast last week, calling for all Democratic candidates to face a litmus test on committing to pack the Supreme Court: promise to pack or get the sack. It is only the latest example of how the hostile takeover of the Court is now the priority for many Democrats in removing a barrier to a radical agenda.
Mann declared:
“When it comes to Senate races, there should be a litmus test,” Mann said. “It isn’t just good enough to be a Democrat. You’ve got to be a Democrat who would be willing to expand the Supreme Court…There’s no way not to be partisan. There’s no way not to be political here. If you care about the environment, you’ve got to vote for the Democrats now.”
Establishment candidates are offering the mob the Supreme Court to show their bona fides as the far left turns on “institutionists” who support our constitutional system. As I previously wrote, even law professors and deans joined this movement in calling for the rejection of our Constitution on the 250th anniversary of our Revolution.
Once packed, the Court could greenlight a variety of unconstitutional measures.
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 make these changes possible.
That includes an agenda for extreme measures ranging from wealth taxes to reparations to climate control regulations.
Mann raised the need to reverse doctrines limiting agency authority—a barrier to some climate control measures. In so doing, he got the underlying law fundamentally wrong:
“It was in a conservative Supreme Court decision within the last few years that introduced the so-called Chevron standard. Basically, what they said was that the EPA no longer had the authority to make rules based on the science and its own determination.”
In 2024, the Supreme Court actually overturned the Chevron Doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. It also did not rule that “the EPA no longer had the authority to make rules based on the science and its own determination.” Rather, it said that courts would review such decisions without the prior presumptions in favor of agency decision-making. The restored, traditional judicial review is precisely to determine whether agency decisions are based on credible interpretations of the law and science.
Mann has had his own conflicts with the courts. He was sanctioned last year after winning a defamation case against bloggers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn for attacking his climate control research.
At the time, some of us questioned the award, which awarded just $1 in actual damages but $1 million in punitive damages. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, BMW of North America v. Gore, striking down a punitive damages award. The case involved the company’s practice of repairing and repainting cars damaged in transit without telling the customers. The jury in the original trial awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages for the car’s lost value due to the lack of a factory paint job and other damage; it then imposed $4 million in punitive damages for the company’s dishonesty.
D.C. Superior Court Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. reduced the award against Steyn to just $5000 after finding the original award to be “grossly excessive.”
The court later learned that Mann’s defense team had allegedly presented false accounts of his losses after the criticism. Mann’s legal team was accused of presenting a chart that listed a grant that Mann allegedly lost due to the defamatory remarks as $9.7 million when it was later found to be worth $112,000. Irving also found a disparity in the grant income figures given to the jury.
The court found the alleged misrepresentations to be “an affront to the Court’s authority” and sanctioned Mann and his legal team “for bad-faith trial misconduct.” After reversing the jury verdict, the court ordered Mann to pay $1.1 million of his critics’ legal expenses.
Now, Mann is calling for all Democratic candidates to pledge to pack the Supreme Court as a condition for running. So any Democrat who believes in our institutions and resists this mob will be a persona non grata in the party as an “institutionalist” captured by “nostalgia.”
Mann joins a growing list of figures demanding the hostile takeover of the Court from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg. The priority is telling. Much of what is planned by the far-left will be difficult to accomplish due to constitutional limits. You can remove those limits by eliminating an independent Supreme Court and turning this essential institution into a federal version of state courts packed with partisan jurists.
At its base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Court’s role. 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.” However, the court was meant to be counter-majoritarian to protect minority groups and viewpoints from the majority will.
Mann’s advice is different from that of James Carville, who wants Democrats to hide this intended move from the public (which continues to oppose court packing). Carville told Democratic candidates: “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—k it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
Mann and others (including former Attorney General Eric Holder) are done with any pretense: “There’s no way not to be partisan. There’s no way not to be political here.” In other words, it is time to make the Supreme Court itself partisan and political. It will then be reduced to just another partisan institution in an age of rage.
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.”
How come Canada gets a leader who’s a world-famous economist while we’re stuck with Natalie Harp’s barely-sentient boyfriend?
We would be much better off as Canada’s 11th province, but I doubt if they would be willing to have us.
ANON voted for Comatose Biden!!
You’re free to move there. But you won’t because your an idiot and a hypocrite, just like all the psycho idiot Hollywood liberals who say they’re moving to Canada if a Republican gets elected, but then decide to stay in their Malibu mansions because they know in reality the living here is far better. A’h0les every one of them.
please just cross the border. Just leave if you don’t like it here. Go.
COMMUNISTADA!
UNION OF CANADIAN SOCIALIST REPUBLICS!
UCSR!
People like Mann and others advocating court packing could be laying the ground work for another civil war. They would lose that war because these Democrats disdain gun rights and perhaps do not have as many guns as those opposing court packing.
Yup, they want to pack the Supreme Court with radical leftists who will interpret away all the entire Bill of Rights. Then, with constitutional protections out of the way, they can install communist totalitarianism, which is their ultimate goal. Remember, on the Left the issue is always the Revolution. That does not exclude the USA.
I shared today’s column (083026) with a friend and this is what he sent back: “I know Michael Mann from his days chasing tenure in the Environmental Sciences department at UVa. He has a mediocre intellect and is a mediocre scholar but, oh my, he does have a keen nose for publicity. Hockey-stick temperature projections are his main claim to fame, never mind that they are rubbish. No one in Charlottesville shed a tear when he decamped for Penn State.
Michael Mann and Peter Hotez wrote “Science Under Siege”. In it the authors reveal a strong desire for a Technocracy – rule by experts – namely them. What they forget, or perhaps would like to forget, is that the ordinary citizen has values that might differ from the Technocracy they have in mind. This is incredible hubris and arrogance. Scientists should inform us so that we can apply our values to resolve the way forward. Michael Mann, and like minded people, would rather ignore other people’s values.
Madison thought that the courts, to be a proper check on the Executive and Legislative branches, should be immune from them. Michael Mann, and his fellow travelers, seem to want to bring the courts into alignment with the popularly elected branches. This is quite dangerous. Again, this is a matter of American values that Michael Mann seems to want to ignore.
“. . . rule by experts – namely them.”
So Mann is the Lord Fauci of climate science.
The link to his academic pedigree looks impressive…
Education
1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics (defended 1996)
1991 M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Physics
1991 M.S. Yale University, Department of Physics
1989 A.B. (double), University of California-Berkeley, Applied Math, Physics (Honors)
However, learning science / medicine continues after graduation day. If it does not then your degrees mean nothing in the clinical / applied forum on a day to day basis.
There is a new “research” article published 4 days ago in Nature Medicine journal that makes an astonishing claim, per the Nature news page:
Does the shingles vaccine cut heart-disease risk? Mounting evidence suggests a link
Large study finds that people who received the ‘recombinant’ vaccine for the viral condition had a lower risk of cardiovascular problems.
nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02663-6
Predictably the legacy media is running with it despite the authors of the study divulging the limitations of their research which are significant. The “study” was based on a review of EMR from a biased, closed system:
We used EHR data from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network…..
This is not a head to head comparison of vaccines but a review of electronic records which are based on subjective diagnosis and failure to account for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risks of each individual in the EMR review. Then there is also the fabulous-tic claims of the authors:
A more plausible explanation is that the recombinant vaccine may induce immune and endothelial changes that could be cardioprotective. For instance, the AS01 adjuvant it contains triggers sustained epigenetic and functional reprogramming of monocytes, including reduced interleukin 6 (IL-6) responses to Toll-like receptor activation13, and IL-6 inhibition is causally associated with lower cardiovascular risk14
Corsi-Zuelli, F., Li, F., Upthegrove, R. et al. Recombinant shingles vaccination and the risk of cardiovascular events. Nat Med (2026). doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04606-0
Inducing immune and endothelial changes could be due to literally dozens of reasons: physical exercise, loss of weight, taking medications like statins which induce immune and endothelial changes, improvement of nutrition, sleep hygiene and more. Noting a reduction IL-6 (a reliable biomarker of inflammation) is all very well and good, but IL-6 (a proinflammatory mediator / cytokine) is synthesized by literally scores of receptors, not just TLRs, on most nucleated cells. Any type of environmental or internal ligand / source of perturbation could result in IL-6 production. IL-6 alone means nothing. It must be viewed with other markers. This is shameful of Nature Medicine.
Science mumbo jumbo aside, it is disappointing that Nature continues its “divide and conquer” of Americans like it did under the Biden-Fauci COVID tenure. It is publishing alleged science based research articles with EMR, skewed data, then reinforcing the “research article” by publishing a news article on their website that makes false claims, all with the purpose of swaying Americans to take the recombinant Shingles vaccine to improve ASCVD risks.
Americans have very reason to distrust US medical science peer review journals like Nature but it also foments confusion amongst physicians. This is bad for Americans.
Climate change panic porn continues with its metamorphosis into the medical sciences.
Estovir
Today you vilify Michael Mann saying that although his academic pedigree is impressive he is not to be taken seriously because he lacks postgraduate “learning” and therefore his academic credentials “mean nothing”, in your own words.
Yesterday you vilified Abdul El-Sayed because after medical school he did not undertake postgraduate residency training, and never held a license to practice medicine. You stated that because of this he is not actually a physician.
You stated: “Abdul El-Sayed earned a PhD degree from Oxford in Public Health, and an MD degree from Columbia University. Again, very impressive. However, he never underwent training as a physician so he is not a physician.”
I would further add that you have a long history of glorifying Jay Bhattacharya in terms of his clinical views regarding the COVID pandemic, and herd immunity in particular.
As you know, Bhattacharya went straight from medical school to a PhD program in economics. His subsequent employment history is in economics. He never did a residency and never held a license to practice medicine.
So by your own criteria in vilifying El-Sayed, then Bhattacharya is not to be taken seriously.
By your own criteria Bhattacharya is NOT a physician, and therefore his views on COVID carry no weight in the “clinical / applied forum on a day to day basis’, to quote your words exactly.
Do you understand the meaning of the word HYPOCRISY.
be honest: you hate that Estovir is an intellectual giant compared to you which is….who are you? what are you? i mean, other than a self-loathing moron, what is your contribution to the world? The fact that everyone on here ridicules you effortlessly drives you crazy. It shows.
Reality really sucks when you live in MAGA fantasy land, doesn’t it.
ANON’S ARE HYJACKING OTHER POSTERS SCREEN NAMES– BEWARE!! Whoever is doing this should be banned!
Kirk is Estovir howling with indignation.
MORON ANON IS THE HYJACKER OF OTHER PEOPLE’S SCREEN NAMES!! MORON ANON SCREAMS ESTOVIR WHEN HE WACKS!!
“MORON ANON SCREAMS ESTOVIR WHEN HE WACKS!!”
hahahahahahaha. everyone hates MORON ANON. everyone.
If the dems believe that packing the court with 4 more seats is essential, why can’t they support Trump adding 4 justices today? Isn’t 13 a great number (according to Clyburn and the others)?
Communist right out in the open. And to think the democrats sent our young boys to die to supposedly fight communists in other countries.. meanwhile, they bred communism in America.. hell we flew them in and gave them money to bring communists moslems here.
Mann, Klarman, Holder and Carville typify all that is vile in the DSA incubator masquerading today as the Democrat Political Cabal. As November approaches, the electorate should remember that the prime anagram for “vile” is: “evil.”
Real simple way to put the Rainbow, Climate, Wokie, Communist (aka Socialist), Revisionist Thug Gangs – DODO BIRDS OF A FEATHER ALWAYS STICK TOGETHER and then go EXTINCT!!!
TERMINATE THE COMMUNIST REBELLION
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
_________________________________________
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
________________________________________________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was a Great American President.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era”; close the border; rescind rebel sanctuary cities; compassionately repatriate all illegal and unassimilable aliens since Jan. 1, 1863; issue mass temporary work permits with no path to citizenship; revoke birthright citizenship; make English the sole official language; commence a war to defeat the rebellion; impose martial law; suspend habeas corpus; “smash” rebel printing presses, networks, podcasts, and social media platforms; and imprison political opponents and rebel judges, all in order to save not the Union but the Nation, eradicate communism and the communist American welfare state, and place America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including absolute freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and minimal taxation and regulation, alongside infinitesimal constitutional government.
There is a challenge, not meant as a taunt, that could be imagined throwing at the left and the right, coming from the middle:
What if we agreed that the current Constitution would be gracefully sunsetted at the end of 2049, and a process begun next year to begin debating and designing a next-gen U.S. Constitution to kick in on that schedule — conditioned on its Ratification prior to Jan 1, 2050?
How do you think someone like Elizabeth Warren would react? Ted Cruz?
Those demanding instant results from the political system would chafe at the gradualism. Those who are possessed of rage, institutional destruction, and non-responsibility for outcomes would similarly snarl at the conditionality that a next-gen Constitution have to be Ratified per Article V. “Who needs stinkin’ consensus?”
But many liberals who believe in orderly change would jump at the chance to renew our national political blueprint.
What about conservatives? It’s a matter of self-confidence in pulling off such a tall order — some are so alienated and beat down, they simply wouldn’t risk it. Others would be open-minded — “We are the same pragmatic, rational, humanistic-scientific thinkers and doers as the Founding generation but living in a very different environment — technology, global responsibilities, media, longevity — given the right process and enough time, we can do it — and we have Ratification as a safeguard against runaway activism”.
What do you think?…giving at least 30 seconds of thought before you type?
Regarding the subset of pro-court-packing persons who are attorneys, such as Senator Warren:
Serious question: How did they get through law school with so little regard for the Constitution?
The anonymous above and Anti-Fascist Warrior below are both Estovir.
Warren lied about being Native American to get in and passed classes because of DEI. Like all of today’s Democrats she hates Democracy and wants eternal power for her party with a Socialist dictatorship. The Democrats never want any other party
to have power or to act in a bipartisan way. Packing the Court is just more cheating like the elections Democratic states and counties run.
Moron voters support dictatorship.
Nobody does Fascism like the far left does Fascism, and they smile while doing it. The leftwing extremists want mob rule, and unchecked power for themselves. Just like every dictator throughout history. Shame on any Democrat who caters to the Fascist mob.
MAGA psycho
ANON MORON!
Su_uck C_ock
HUH? I’m for MAGA!! I guess you like to su*K ho mo
ANON hyjacking another account or is that you Dustoff?? Changing sides???
see? facist right here. MAGA rules you night an day, better get used to it worm.
A guy gets caught lying and is still undeterred. Have to tip my hat on the sheer chutzpah. Funny thing about these types of people, they think they are smarter than the populace. How many times have the flavor of the month last? The good Professor noted the country is against court packing. Yet these people will rush in where angels fear to tread. Not a smart move upsetting the average Joe. Here is my warning. Before you try and change the system remember what happened the last time. Democrats used the nuclear option on Federal Judges and the country ended up with a 6-3 Supreme Court majority against their wishes. Hoisted by their own petard. Unintended consequences. Our system of Government is robust enough to withstand these assaults. While concerned, i am not worried. Stupid ideas and stupid people come and go, but the country moves on.
Proposing legislation is part of our constitutional and democratic process so I don’t think it’s fair for Professor Turley to characterize legislative proposals to increase the number of justices as a hostile takeover.
Actually it is reasonable. Ask the question why the Democrats want to propose this exact very thing. They want their outcome and will threaten to do what they need to do to get what they want and they cannot without changing the Supreme Court. Never pet a growling dog. They are warning you.
Nice try.
It’s a evil plan to pack the court with so many liberal nutcases the other party can never win a case. Imagine the howling from the left of President Trump was able to expand the court and appoint 16 justices after the midterms? Professor Turely would have the same opinion because he has principles, something you and all Democrats lack. Any evil trick to gain power forever while whinning it’s the other side destroying Democracy.
You just walked into a room of 23 people. All 23 people are thieves. They will be taking a vote on whether or not you should be robbed. They will implement the results of the vote.
Very funny CC
Do you know why we are a Constitutional Republic rather than a democracy?
What do you call it? Want to bet that the Democrats will not allow any Republican backed Supreme Court Justice? How about we do as suggested, but Trump gets to pick all four Justices? the Democrats will never allow that either. The Democrats that back this are trying to short circuit a stop to the policies.
Here’s an idea, though its a bit extreme.
The GOP should introduce two new bills immediately, but voted on in the following order. Think of them as the carrot and the stick. The first would codify into law new requirements for changing the number of Supreme Court Justices; preferably something like a 2/3 majority of both houses and the president’s approval. The second would increase the number of SC justices to 13 immediately. That’s just what the crazies want when they’re in control, but not so much if Trump gets to pick them. But passing the first would make passing the second VERY difficult.
Smart GOP politicians (if any 🙂 would support the first, and reserve judgement on the second. This would put the ‘progressives’ on the spot. If they don’t help pass the first, the second could happen.
One problem with this idea is that the 1st law could be repealed if the Dems gain enough control to pass new laws, but still its better than the current situation.
Another problem is that the second bill is one that sane people don’t really want. If the GOP did end up supporting the second bill, the concept of the SC as a neutral arbiter would effectively end — but the Dems seem to assume the GOP wants that anyway, so would probably be more scared of the immediate 4 new GOP justices than hopeful of ruining the GOP’s reputation. Note that the GOP can use ‘the stick’ as a bluff – they don’t HAVE to pass it if ‘the carrot’ fails. That’s why GOP pols should publicly reserve judgement on bill 2 until bill 1 is resolved.
…and years before, Professors Cloward and Piven proposed collapsing the economic system through abuse and corruption of the welfare system…their belief was that the substructure network of Socialism would move in to reshape and restructure our society. Those deemed irreparable would be sent to re-education camps where they would either surrender or die at the gulag.
Well I’ll be damned!
8 Ball above and Sally below are both Estovir.
UR A6monkey!
Rs have had a litmus test about abortion for decades. Now that the Ds do the same thing is is wrong?
Sally
The litmus test for abortion should be very narrow. Rape, incest, mother and/or child health. I personally don’t see the morning after pill as abortion but even that’s arguable to msny.
You can call the rest of it whatever, but it’s not a form to use as birth control.
You’re not a MD anon. Go f your_self.
PUPPETS AHEAD..!
Stephen B Benisch Esq.
CultivatingMan
Diogenes ZZDoc
Upstate Farmer
Are all ESTOVIR
Jaysus! Yet another “Anonymous” TROLL! Will SOMEONE not free us from these meddlesome pests?
Just a thought: Professor Turley, how about getting rid of “Anonymous” posters?
The disproportionate number of people who post under this moniker makes it virtually impossible to tell the legitimate, rational posters from the nutcases.
DrZee is Estovir, of course. And he’s upset that so-called ‘trolls’ are hampering his work. As though posting under dozens of names per day doesn’t make him a troll!!
The bizarre Anonymous below is also Estovir; advising ‘Z’ to go anonymous.
The question one has to ask is, ‘Why does Estovir have to be an ever-present feature of this forum?’ What vital work does Estovir imagine he is doing??
MORON ANON IS EVER-PRESENT POSTING DAILY CRAP
Z – I understand your frustration at not being able to tell one Anon from another, it frustrates me as well; but let me explain the reason that I’m opposed to removing the capability. (I’ve considered adding a handle/signature to my posts, but as anyone could then impersonate me, thought its not worth the trouble)
I’m a conservative, and always have been. I appreciate thoughtful, logical dialog and am disgusted by crude, name-calling insults disguised as discussion. I’m not embarrassed by my opinions, and I express myself freely with those I feel I can trust. But I also realize that if I express them and am publicly associated with them, any person displeased with them will now have a new target to vent their frustration upon. If that takes the form of polite, respectful discussion there’s no problem. But as we all know there are many violent nutcases in the world, as well as a political movement gaining steam that is envious of the Soviet/Chinese/Nazi/Iranian model for suppressing dissenting opinions. That could take many forms, from ‘canceling me’ – denying me promotions at work, or firing me, to harassing me physically or in the courts, or perhaps putting me on the list for future ‘re-education’ camps. It is mainly for that reason that I restrict my online commenting activity to this blog where I think the anonymity provided is most likely to protect me from that sort of retaliation.
Note: I don’t know how this site handles logging. Maybe I’m screwed either way, but I’m hoping that IP addresses of anonymous commenters are not retained – at least not longer than a few days. But If you register with a name, I’m pretty sure the backend system will have to keep an email address (or similar) to identify you when you post. That info could be subpoenaed by a future(?) authoritarian govt and abused as they saw fit.
@Anonymous–I understand and respect your perspective, and your thoughtful commentary has given me something new to think (and worry!) about.
Thank you
Anonny is a pedophil_e
To Anonymous, who uses fear as an excuse rather than truthfully admitting he is a troll:
Your anonymity is the same whether you use an alias or go “anonymous.” No sign-up is needed; use any name and any address for a stable icon. Because your words and mine mirror past patterns, I don’t see you as a serious player. You could prove me wrong by picking an alias and an address, but like before, you won’t.
The disproportionate number of people who post under this moniker makes it virtually impossible to tell the legitimate, rational posters from the nutcases.
IIRC you are a retired anesthesiologist. You could place him on a continuous infusion of propofol ala Michael Jackson, and I can adjust the drip
when he stops breathingif he stops bleating.He is bona fide Axis II Personality Disorder. Until Turley drops the hammer, the psychotic lying and no-rules sociopathy will run freely, hence a continuous drip of Propofol. Or if you prefer Versed for anterograde amnestic properties. Romazicon can be administered on a PRN basis
😷
@Estovir–
Nope, I’m not a retired anesthesiologist. I’m a retired physical scientist.
Zee you’re just Estovir talking to yourself!
Nope, I’m not a retired anesthesiologist. I’m a retired physical scientist.
Thanks for the correction. I had you confused with ZZDoc / John Trapper (same avatar icon). Your avatar icon is different. Noted.
Pedo more like it!
Estovir, why must you be a constant presence here? Who the hell is paying you?? And are you actually being paid per comment?
All day long you talk to yourself through bogus conversations between the puppets. Like right below, you as DrZee are talking to you, Estovir. These exchanges are absurd!
DrZee S_T_F_U