Congressional Democrats blocked an effort to introduce a constitutional amendment to bar the Court’s expansion, with many members reiterating their demand to pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority. The Democrats insisted the Court is broken and no longer legitimate because of partisan rulings they want reversed by a packed Court. Ironically, the vote came with the release of the latest Harvard-Harris polling showing that Congress itself is still the least respected institution, while the Supreme Court holds higher approval than either the White House or Congress.
Congress is still wallowing at 34 percent approval among the American people. Both parties are equally disliked, with 55% disapproval of the GOP and 53% disapproval of the Democratic Party.
Conversely, the Supreme Court continues to enjoy far greater approval from the public, currently at 49% at “very favorable” or “favorable.”
So which institution is being targeted for elimination or radical reform? Of course, it is the more popular Supreme Court.
Packing the court and other measures are unpopular with the public. Instead, Democrats hope to achieve these reforms through legislation. However, it must then pass judicial review.
Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.
There are now calls for a litmus test for Democratic candidates to pack the Court or get the sack.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) wants to take over the Court to reverse rulings against racial gerrymandering while other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.
They join a growing list of figures demanding the hostile takeover of the Court from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg.
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.
Notably, this effort is not even popular with the majority. It is a power play to force major institutional changes through Congress, including radically changing a Court that is more popular than Congress itself.
The need is to address ‘CASE OVERLOAD’ in Courts (Federal & State) Dockets. No One is addressing it and the Clerks, from the Federal Clerks to the County Clerks are pulling their hair out because of the backlogs that turning a blind eye to the problem has caused.
It is a VOLUME problem that the system must expand to handle.
A.I. String: ( What is the Case demand per year on the Supreme Court )
The U.S. Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for review each year, but agrees to hear only about 80 of them.
Case Demand vs. Cases Heard
• Requests Received: The Supreme Court FAQ notes that about 7,000–8,000 new cases (petitions for a writ of certiorari) are filed each Term.
• Cases Accepted: The justices grant a full review with oral arguments for only about 80 cases per year.
• Acceptance Rate: The high court accepts fewer than 2% to 3% of the total petitions demanded of it.
How Cases Are Chosen
• Rule of Four: At least four of the nine justices must vote to accept a case for review.
• Selection Factors: The court looks for major constitutional conflicts, split decisions among lower appeals courts, or questions of national importance.
—
A.I. String: ( What is the Emergency Case demand per year on the Supreme Court )
The U.S. Supreme Court faces a sharply rising demand for emergency relief (the “shadow” or interim docket), with filings accelerating dramatically under recent presidential administrations.
Filing Volume and Trends
• Volume: Hundreds of substantive emergency applications (such as requests for stays of execution, injunctions, or administrative relief) are filed across multi-year periods—for instance, data shows about 475 substantive emergency applications filed between 2000 and 2024.
• Historical context: During the 16 combined years of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, the federal government filed a total of just 8 emergency requests.
• First Trump administration: The pace increased to roughly 10 requests per year (41 total over 4 years).
• Biden administration: Demand averaged about 4.7 requests per year (19 total over 4 years).
• Second Trump administration: Demand surged to an unprecedented level, with roughly 30 emergency requests filed in the first year alone (January 2025 to January 2026) and around 40 total applications filed by late summer 2026.
• Recent Surges: The demand has accelerated sharply under recent presidential administrations. For example, the first year of the second Trump administration alone saw roughly 30 to 41 emergency relief requests filed.
Nature of the Emergency Docket
Fast-track process: These applications seek immediate, interim action (such as stays of lower court orders or executions) with minimal briefing and typically no oral arguments.
• Grant rates and outcomes: The court historically grants a notable portion of substantive requests—climbing as high as 44% in recent terms—and frequently divides sharply over whether intervention is appropriate.
How Emergency Cases are Handled
• Process: These applications seek immediate, fast-tracked interim relief. They typically proceed with expedited or limited briefing and rarely feature oral arguments.
• Resolution: The Court often resolves them via brief, unsigned orders, though recent high-stakes cases have occasionally prompted more extensive written opinions or public disagreement among the justices.
• Timelines: Processing speeds vary by legal category, moving fastest in criminal procedure and civil rights matters (averaging roughly two weeks) compared to slower economic or regulatory disputes.
—
Re:
Add More Jurist says: August 31, 2026 at 3:14 PM
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/08/31/clyburn-calls-for-packing-the-court-with-bakers-dozen-to-flip-cases/comment-page-2/#comments
“… What concerned the justices was that many of these injunctions directly contravened earlier precedent, exposing the cynical purpose of these orders. For a president to be able to carry out major changes, he had to run a gauntlet of hundreds of judges, any one of whom could effectively negate reforms. In response, the Supreme Court ramped up the use of the emergency docket and cracked down on national injunctions, quickly reversing the rapidly increasing number of injunctions against the Trump administration. …” -JT
The Long Shadow of Judge Indira Talwani
By: Jonathan Turley et. al. – Jonathanturley.org ~ August 31, 2026
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/08/31/the-long-shadow-of-judge-indira-talwani/
Suggestion: (Bifurcate the Supreme Bench via constitutional amendment)
9 Jurist for the Supreme Primary Docket
5 Jurist for the Supreme Emergency Docket
—–
14 Supreme Court Jurist ~ All amongst Equals with distinct Docket directives at the case discretion of the Solicitor General.
FDR also used the excuse of overworked judges to justify packing the Court. The people saw through it then, and they will see through it now. You are not very creative. You’re literally plagiarizing FDR. So old hat.
Trump is the one destroying America.
No, Trump is saving America from the destruction of the Left.
Is the destruction in the room with you now? Locally, gasoline was $2 a gallon at the start of Trump’s term and is now doubled in just under 2 years to $4 a gallon in a state with just about the lowest fuel taxes, so the increase is due to constricted supply.
What world do you live in ? The national average gas price was 3.01 in Jan 2025. It did drop to 2.76 byu Jan 2026 UNDER TRUMP.
Currently it is 3.92 Thje high so far under Trump was 4.39 under Biden the high was 4.89
We all want lower gas prices.
In Jan 2026 Global Oil Production was 105mbbl/day right now it is 98mbbl/day.
That is about 5% off.
Actually it’s a lot higher than what you say. Regular gas is “cheap” because of its subsidized ethanol content. Trump increased the content to 15% instead of the usual 10%. The real price of had the ‘no ethanol’ gas is closer to $4.60 a gallon. Diesel which is the real fuel our economy relies on IS way higher than at any time in Biden’s term.
The SPR is at its minimums and when that can’t be used to “hide” the real cost of gas things will be much worse.
Global oil production is meaningless if it can’t be delivered or refined to meet demand. We are EXPORTING oil to keep the market’s stocks artificially high. We can’t do that forever.
We are reducing our renewables capacity. China is increasing it and using it to blunt any oil shocks. We will be far worse off very soon.
example of X lifting text from other sources and AI
” The real price of had the ‘no ethanol’ gas is closer to $4.60 a gallon. Diesel which is the real fuel our economy relies on IS way higher than at any time in Biden’s term.”
America is doing fine.
What about Trump’s reckless move to rig the election in Texas?
You keep repeating and repeating and repeating that. You never provide any details, evidence, or links. You’re a broken record.
Trump does not cointrol elections in Texas.
The Constitution does not state that Congress cannot change the Supreme Court if Congress is not popular.
No, it does not. Hence the need for a constitutional amendment. Once the party in power starts packing the Court, there will be no end to it, and we will end up with a Supreme Court with 197 justices, and be a laughable third-world country. That is where the Dems are taking us with this reckless move to pack the Court.
#WeAreEstovir
Is that like the concept that all the parents will be cutting the penis and scrotums from male toddlers if a transsexual is allowed to play basketball in college? 197 Justices is such a flight of fancy I wonder if you have been eating psychoactive mushrooms or if your Russian boss is cracking down on getting the posts out.
The number on the Supreme Court should be proportional to the population of the US.
No but it does state that the people can change the congress.
“Go along with us or else we will call you names and ridicule you. ”
This is the government that we have under Trump.
We can do better than this.
If America didn’t need a bodyguard, we would not have needed Trump. He is boorish, but he is effective, and gets the job done. Therefore, despite some of the rougher aspects of his personality, he is the right man for the job. Maybe if your side nominated someone better than Biden or Harris, things would have turned out differently. But we needed a corrective to the America we got under Woke/Biden, which was clinically insane. Just think, men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and showers, drag queen story hour for kindergarteners, gay porn in elementary schools, chopping off kids’ genitals, defund the police, erase the borders, invite in millions of unvetted single men of military age, including tens of thousands of convicted rapists and murderers, pack the Supreme Court, kill domestic energy production, suppress conservative speech by colluding with social media companies and establishing a Ministry of Truth, mask young children which has no health benefit and leads to anxiety and mental health issues, impose vaccine mandates directly contrary to “my body my choice,” assassinate conservative commenters, support late-term abortion and even infanticide, support terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah, assault Jews on college campuses trying to get to class, racism in the form of CRT, cultural Marxism, convert late-night comedy into angry partisan diatribes, assassinate the candidate for President from the opposing party, assassinate that same person after he becomes president, assassinate health care executives. Now with DSA we can add: support socialism, abolish the Senate, abolish the Presidency, and abolish prisons, and “from the river to the sea” (i.e., genocide the Jews).
So . . . if you are paying attention, you realize we needed a rough body guard to save America from death, which is what we were getting under Dem control. If you don’t want America to need a rough person like Trump, don’t try and destroy America with lunacy. Simple as that.
#WeAreEstovir
Trump cannot manage pool refinishing; he’s good at getting people to do damage. And line his own pockets; mostly lining his own pockets.
Yet in most all ways things are improving.
As a technical matter, Democrats in the House did not block the introduction of a proposed constitutional amendment by a Republican House member but instead they voted against the proposed amendment on the House floor so it didn’t get the 2/3 support it need to proceed to the Senate.
Correct. It got a simple majority, but not a supermajority. All Republicans voted in favor, and all but one Dem voted against. They did not “block” it, in the sense of putting up a procedural hurdle. Still, the MSM used the “block” language (see example below), which is probably where Professor Turley picked it up. But it is imprecise.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-block-constitutional-amendment-supreme-court-justices-rcna595736
Libturds are the tifas, as soon as they regain power, they will crap💩 all over every non socialist.
What is the relevance of popularity to the machinery of government?
What is the relevance of rational thought to your life? None, apparently.
I will be voting for Democrats in November to spite the Republicans.
Then you’re an idiot because you’ll be voting for your own misery just to spite some other people you don’t even know.
How many good questions have you given good answers to, instead of just ad hominem attacks?
None, apparently.
BTW ad hominem is a fallacy, which is irrational.
Good questions? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! That’s a laugh!!!!!!!!!
Just imagine, every American soldier who died for his country—the United States of America—since 1776 actually died for MexAfricAsiArabia without even knowing it.
No, no, they are not racist.
“Xavier Becerra’s Mexico Problem”
A growing body of evidence reveals that Xavier Becerra, the current frontrunner for California governor, has deep ties to a network of militant activists and foreign agents who have a history of meddling in U.S. elections, mobilizing pro-immigration activism, and undermining American sovereignty.
One of the more personal nodes within Becerra’s consulate connections is the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), a group that has coordinated joint citizenship events with Mexico’s consulates and promoted Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s controversial emergency phone app for Mexican migrants fearing deportation from the US.
According to a report from Mexico’s own Sacramento consulate, consular officials work directly with both CRLAF and CHIRLA to provide free consultations for illegal immigrants, including workshops for beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
CRLAF employed two of Becerra’s daughters and co-signed legal briefs supporting Becerra’s immigration-related lawsuits when he was Attorney General. When Becerra spoke at a CRLAF gala in 2022, it was Mexico’s Consul General in Sacramento, Liliana Ferrer, who introduced him to the stage.
“We Have Got To Kill Him”
Unidos was founded by militant Chicano liberation activists in the 1960s. Among the most prominent figures in the group’s early network was Jose Angel Gutierrez, who had declared at the time: “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”
“Go Back To Europe”
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is another prominent actor in this network. Becerra worked at MALDEF when he was a law student at Stanford and has maintained ties to the organization ever since. MALDEF has advocated on migrant policies alongside Mexico’s consulates and was founded by an activist who publicly bragged about “taking over” all political institutions in California. Those who disagreed, he added, “should go back to Europe.”
Mexico’s Consulate Network Is a Foreign Lobbying Operation
The State Department’s announcement that it is putting Mexico’s extensive consular network under review comes none too soon. President Claudia Sheinbaum’s Mexico is a breeding ground for drug cartels that pose a cross-border threat, and internationally, she tries to obstruct the pursuit of U.S. interests. It’s time to apply pressure where it hurts.
But the best reason cuts to the heart of the American experiment. Mexico’s 53-consulate complex has been a problem in the making for almost 40 years now, and American presidents of both parties have looked the other way.
An “America First” approach simply cannot tolerate a wide-ranging consulate network that conspires to cultivate a distinct group that would then act as a permanent pressure lobby. That would enable Mexican leaders to influence America’s own internal debates and hinder the patriotic assimilation of the country’s second-largest ethnic bloc.
The Mexican view came across most starkly in a comment then-President Vicente Fox put in on his presidential website in 2002. Mexico, he said, “is one nation of 123 million citizens—100 million who live in Mexico and 23 million who live in the United States.” Fox created the Institute for Mexicans Abroad and put at its head the Texas-born Juan Hernandez to bring these U.S.-based persons the message that “although far, they are not alone.”
And every Monday morning, Gonzalez Gutierrez holds a public audience at the LA consulate, where people will vent off about immigration issues or even on whether the original homeland of the Aztecs was inside the U.S.
To Gonzalez Gutierrez, assimilation is a myth. The “merging of the different national identities of the immigrants into a new American nationality does not correspond to the experience of Mexican immigrants. … The myth of the melting pot, which in the United States has dangled a universal promise of vertical social mobility based on individual merit in a classless society, cannot easily explain the marginality of Mexican communities.”
And from Mexico’s perspective, we can see why. To have its lobbying pressure group, or even a fifth column it can activate one day, Mexico City must work against assimilation. To America, which takes in immigrants yet is determined to remain a distinct nation, assimilation is not an option. It is something it must oppose.
“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all,” former President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1915, “would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities … each preserving its separate nationality.”
And this, aside from Sheinbaum’s blundering, is ultimately why the Trump administration must see its review and consulate reduction through to the end. It’s either America First or Mexico First.
The RECONQUISTA is nearing completion.
It is that time of night when the TDS-afflicted jackals and demons come onto this blog and wail like banshees because Trump is living rent-free in their heads.
#WeAreEstovir
Trump is a squatter.
^ Troll proves oldman’s point ^
No, he doesn’t.
Why yes, yes he does.
In the United States, squatting occurs when a person enters land that does not belong to them without lawful permission and proceeds to act in the manner of an owner. Squatting is a bad thing, and those who do it are bad people who should not be supported.
So . . . bad people do bad things. Bad things should not be supported. Bad things are bad. Bad people are bad. It is bad to support bad, but good to support good. See Spot run.
Are you in kindergarten?
The Founders put a lot of idealism into the Declaration and Constitution, and you benefit from it.
Are you a parody of yourself?
all presidents are.
Trump lives in MAGA hearts, because they have no minds.
From someone who beleived in the collusion delusion ?
That PPACA would lower medical costs ?
That you could keep your insurance if you wanted to ?
That the hunter Biden laptop was fake ?
That Joe Biden was not corrupt ?
That Joe Biden was mentally competent ?
Now I am told that Jill and Hillary are spining that Joe was drugged for the debate.
Sure the Secret Service lets people spke presidents food and drink all the time.
regardless, Those of you on the left should NOT be making any claims about the intelligence of MAGA.
Idiots like you still believe in socialism which has NEVER worked anywhere ever.
And usually lead to blood in the streets.
This court is forever linked to Donald Trump. And everything Trump touches becomes toxic by mere association.
Everything Trump touches becomes toxic to the lawless, the dictators, the terrorists, the human traffickers, the child sex traffickers, the drug traffickers, the murderers, the arsonists, the thieves, and the liars of society.
Winning!
Amen
It’s more linked to Mitch McConnell, a bitter man who has made of life of damaging America, but it’s foundation is the Federalist Society, a group dedicated to the takeover of American government by taking over the Supreme Court. Trump is their hand puppet. On the other side is the Heritage Foundation which is trying to take over the American government by taking over the Executive branch. They often, but don’t always, have similar goals – to let the billionaires run the government.
Turley’s job is to be rewarded by billionaires to become a millionaire to convince the middle and lower class to become minions to the oligarchs.
There is alot wrong with McConnell. You are correct that his tactics and gamble created the opportunity for a 6-3 conservative Majority on the court.
But Trump appointed the justices – Not McConnell.
An d Gorsuch is stellar, while Barrett and Kavanaugh are tolerably good.
The Federalist society has been around for 44 years. It is one of the most prestigious legal institutions in the US. It has been an excellent bulwark against left wing nut legal nonsense.
To the extent I have problems with Federalist blessed court nominees, that would be that they are not sufficiently constitutionalist.
The constitution has no provisions for the administrative state – it is unconstitutional.
The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the constitution – and they do NOT include much of what the federal govenrment does today.
The constitution further severely limits the power of state and local governments regarding free markets. Yet for 90 years the courts have ignored that.
The current conservative majority is not attempting to fix that.
The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.
More than half of federal agencies are unconstitutional.
Federal State and local govenrments have no role regarding the economy beyond enforcing agreements, torts and criminal law.
Yes, the Heritiage center seeks to take over the federal government and DISEMPOWER it.
I am fine with that.
No corporate welfare. No government charity – if you wish to give to others you are free to do so yourself.
The golden rule is do unto others has you would have them do unto you – NOT leverage govenrment to steal from government for your personal benefit or whatever charitable cause appeals to you at the moment.
Limit federal power to that enumerated in the constitution.
I am perfectly fine with that – if you do not like those limits – amend the constitution.
You are ALWAYS free to do so, and when you do the response by originalist judges will be predictable.
They will read YOUR amendment in the way YOU wrote it – not as they wish it were.
The Democrats insatiable lust for power fuels their stupidity and will lead to their downfall. Only the stupid liberal trolls here are stupid enough to support dictatorship.
Why is Trump acting like a dictator?
A dictator disobeys the Supreme Court. That describes Biden. Trump may complain about Supreme Court decisions he dislikes, but he obeys them anyway. Not so with Biden, who infamously said he knew what the Supreme Court said about bailing out student loans but he was going to do it anyway. Look in the mirror, you corrupt fool.
It helps that Trump is supported by billionaires who bought control of the Supreme Court. They waited until after Trump was elected to say that Trump can do anything Trump wants to do. They were told they were to say “no” to anything Biden wanted. Their legal reasoning has been “Because we say so.”
Congratulations are in order for a new record set by the Trump administration !!!
Under the Trump administration, the price of diesel at the pump has reached an all time high !!!
Never before in history has the price of diesel been so high !!!
Trump brought inflation down to 1.5%, which Biden then jacked up to 9% in 18 months. Trump has again brought it down. Keep up your delusional thinking, troll.
That’s a lie. Diesel is $5.78 right now. June 2022 under Biden it was $5.82, but that was before Biden’s massive 6% inflation so you have to adjust for that inflation. That means Biden’s diesel today is $7.51 a lot higher than Trump’s diesel. Biden’s price for gas and diesel are both higher. You have to be very stupid to not know that. Or a liar. Hey Hoover did the best diesel was 21 cents a gallon under him you idiot.
Why is it not stupid to compare today’s prices with prices from almost a hundred years ago?
It is stupid, if comparing the nominal price. That was the whole point of the commenter to which you responded. Read his comment again, this time for comprehension.
Biden was bailing out the US economy after Trump allowed a forest fire of Covid to kill 1 Million Americans and disable millions more. Trump bailed out billionaires, well, quadrupled the wealth of the billionaires while crushing the wealth of everyone else.
Price levels never seen before!
Capt. Dan Keeler, commanding officer of the USS Abraham Lincoln spoke to the press in Thailand.
He was asked, “What do you think about President Trump saying that your 286 day deployment was not nearly long enough?”
His answer : “Uh, so, the president speaks for himself. That’s what I think about that.”
Looks like military leaders are getting just a little peeved with Trump.
Hopefully, when push comes to shove and Trump starts issuing ridiculous orders, they will tell him to take a hike.
From “the president speaks for himself” on political matters (which are not within the purview of military leaders) to “military leaders are getting just a little peeved with Trump”? That’s quite a leap there, bub. Sounds more like you have TDS, to come on here spouting off-topic about Trump and reaching some silly, ridiculous conclusion. I guess you preferred when Comatose Joe Biden’s shadowy cabal of left-wing extremists was making military decisions based on a date rather than facts on the ground, and causing the worst, most disastrous pullout in American history with over a dozen dead servicemembers, hundreds of allies left behind to face the torture of the Taliban, and 10s of millions in sophisticated military hardware to fall into the hands of terrorists.
oldman
My, my my.
Just a little sensitive today, aren’t we !!!
Seem to have struck a nerve !!!
This latest episode comes on the heels of Sec. of the Army, Dan Driscoll, former Army Ranger officer, resigning in protest.
According to reports, he went the WH to tell Trump that the war with Iran is unsustainable. Apparently Trump ignored his warnings and changed the subject to progress on his ballroom. He refused to discuss anything except the ballroom.
My my my. just a little propagandistic today, are we?
Aw, too bad media reports crush your little slant into the ground. I reviewed SEVERAL media sources, including Lefties like The Atlantic and AP and none say what you do.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense/4710633/dan-driscoll-farewell-message-hegseth-praise-army/
https://apnews.com/article/driscoll-hegseth-trump-army-secretary-resignation-237d3fb496f89603b3f01ee02d8f238b
Exactly WHAT “According to reports” were you referring to?????????????????????
Are you still in Kansas?
What is your name and address?
Trump can barely make it through a meeting without losing consciousness.
Did you serve? You have no idea about anything but a great ability to spread lies.
The job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not a law or policy is Constitutional. Not popular. Not wise. Not smart. Not anything else. And certainly not based on feelings, despite what Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks. That is deference to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Today’s Democrats believe they are smarter than Madison, than Jefferson, than Hamilton, than Washington, than Adams, than Monroe. All of them. If Democrat think packing the court is a great idea, then let’s have President Trump begin efforts to add four justices to the high court. Done.
If it is not explicitly in the US Constitution, it is not Constitutional. Therefore no laws or regulations are Constitutional.
See? Easy.
WHAT is not in the Constitution. clown? Did you use Cliff’s Notes to pass 9th Grade?
No laws or regulations are in the US Constitution. Nothing about food safety or speed limits, for example. It also says that felons have the right to bear arms. Criminals are entitled to carry guns. That is in the Constitution.
Since the Court’s job is inherently anti-majoritarian, it follows that a low approval for the Court means it’s doing its job correctly (contra the comment below suggesting a low approval means the Court is not doing its job right, which is exactly backwards).
This is in contrast to Gigi/X/Svelazrepeatedly suggesting the Court’s rulings are different than popular opinion. Popular opinion matters for the political branches – legislative and executive – but not for the Court. The Court’s sole fidelity is to the law, not passions of the day among the population. It cannot serve two masters. Those passions are exactly what the Court is designed to keep in check.
“Former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.”
They better be careful what they wish for, as Leon Trotsky found out.
OldManFromKS,
I believe that is what OLLY is referring to when he says well formed citizens can and do differentiate between law and emotions. A well formed citizen can formulate an opinion based on laws. Those who base an opinion on their emotions or how they “feel” are not well formed anything.
#WeAreEstovir
Those who base an opinion on their emotions or how they “feel” are not well formed anything.
They become like the mindless crowds cheering in support of Luigi Mangione who committed murder by cowardly shooting his unarmed victim in the back, or cheering for Lindsay Clancy who betrayed her role as mother by intentionally killing her three children.
#WeAreEstovir
How odd. If all they are to do is rule against the majority then that is chaos.
They do not need to rule at all. It appears the majority are taking cases that they are bribed to take and rule the way they are bribed to rule. They serve one master. Their patron.
If all they are to do is rule against the majority then that is chaos.
That is not all they are to do. They are to rule according to the law as it actually exists, not as groups of people want it to exist. In many instances they will be counter-majoritarian, particularly when political passions run high or political goals become extreme.
You wrote: “the Court’s job is inherently anti-majoritarian” not that they have some other job as well. That was the only job you said they have.
Why does Trump call them traitors for going against him?
A 49% approval rating for a non-partisan, lifetime-appointed Supreme Court is historically very low. For decades, the Court routinely enjoyed approval ratings well over 60%. It seems Turley doesn’t want you to notice just how bad it is for the Supreme Court.
In its 26 years of tracking, Gallup’s high was 62% (2000 and 2001). Perhaps you have a source to back up your claim. More importantly, an approval number tells you how people feel about the court’s decisions and nothing about their reasoning. Gallup’s own analyst says the GOP drop came from the tariffs and birthright citizenship decisions. Democrat drop was after Dobbs. Same 6-3 majority, different outcomes.
Olly, you just posted the source. Gallup. The General Social Survey (GSS)—which has tracked public confidence in the Supreme Court since 1973—show that the percentage of Americans expressing a “great deal” of confidence routinely hovered between 30% and 40% for decades, before plummeting to an all-time historic low of just 18% following the Dobbs decision.
The unprecedented drops in approval among Democrats and Independents post-Dobbs were uniquely sustained because they followed a highly politicized appointment process (such as the block on Merrick Garland and the rapid confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett). That’s not just “feels” it’s their actual reasoning.
In your limited capacity to understand, it would behoove you to contemplate WHO are the “respondents” to these Internet and online “surveys” and “polls” and who are the source pollsters and their reputation? Bet you never even looked at that, georgie boy.
The outcomes were the ones the Federalist Society paid for.
The Federalist Society does not pay for external polling, clown.
True enough, but the big growth in power has been in the executive. Congress are castratis. The executive is becoming a tyrant. SS
Anon,
‘Tyrant’ means ruling without legal authority.
Trump was elected and is the chief executive. Thus far he has obeyed even the stupidest court decisions and properly filed appeals to higher courts.
In no rational description is he a Tyrant. He follows the law.
Slander with a different word.
Rigging elections in Texas is something a dictator would do.
A dictator and tyrant are different. A dictator is a lawful office; a tyranny isn’t.
Read about Cincinnatus and Pisistratus.
Don’t bother to respond. I am finished educating you.
Those approval numbers are nothing to brag about. Less than 50% of the population approves of the Supreme Court. That’s not good.
Republicans wanting to freeze the current numbers actually goes against Turley’s view on the court. He prefers a much bigger number of justices. Whether democrats choose to block this or not is irrelevant. Republicans don’t have the majority or the political capital to make and amendment possible. Not in this political climate.
Trump’s poll numbers are atrocious and republicans are openly starting to distance themselves from him. The war with Iran is being completely ignored because Trump a not winning. The economy is not doing well either and now data centers are so unpopular that republicans once big supporters of them are doing wild 180’s opposing them.
The midterms are not going to be pleasant for republicans and I don’t expect Trump to live long enough to finish his term.
Less than 2% of this blog approves of your waste of bandwidth. What say you to that?
Awww that’s cute. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
if he did, that’s more than what you do.
if he did, that’s more than what you ever did all by yourself.
These judges and not elected. So polling means ZIP!
X
Let’s talk about Biden’s poll numbers (Biden’s rolling RCP average-39; Trump’s is 40 or 41)
Insider/Advantage -39
CBS News -37
Harvard-Harris -39
Wall Street Journal -36
Emerson -37
CNN-37
I&I/TIPP -36
Economist/YouGOv- 38
Reuters- 38
Gallup -39
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating
more Biden: same source
Monmouth 35
Marquette 34
ABCNews/Ipsos 36
Daily Kos/Civiqs 35
NBC News 37
funny, I just can’t remember MSM Nightly News saying, “A new poll shows Biden’s approval rating at 35,” etc.’ like they do for Trump.
what a joke
Nobody cares about Biden. Trump is the president and his numbers are in the toilet. Can’t be blaming Biden for everything now.
President Trump’s current job approval rating averages roughly 38% according to major tracking models, with his disapproval rating hovering around 58%. Biden’s disapproval stood at 54%.
More people disapprove of Trump than they did of Biden.
Woe is me, can you imagine 4 more Ketanji Jackson’s?
That would make The Jackson 5.
They would affirm a ruling that “Never Can Say Goodbye” was their greatest hit.
Lin – good one!
Yours,
Uncle Henry
Is Henry your real name?
If Trump is interfering with Texas elections, does this mean that Democrats should storm the White House, just as Republicans stormed the Capitol?
Why is this relevant?
She’s a lot better suited than the current batch of conservative justices. Maybe a new Kennedy in the mix would be better.
LOL.. Even her own lib justices knows she not that smart.
You see, X, that’s your problem.
AS far as I can recall, criticism on this blog about Jackson has been grounded in her sauciness, her superciliousness, her condescension, her attempt to pretend her opinions reflect a superior take over her colleagues on the issue , her simplistic understanding, her express assertion that her role was to let others know how SHE feels about issues, etc.
It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal.
What makes you so contrarian? There are several blogs more to your leaning, and it doesn’t look like you changed any minds on this one here, -so don’t bother invoking your usual “fair game” smoke screen. Peace. have a good weekend.
LIn, still don’t get the whole idea of free speech and expressing a different point of view or perspective I see.
When conservative justices like Antonin Scalia or Samuel Alito write biting, aggressive dissents, or sharply question advocates from the bench, their actions are traditionally praised by ideological allies as “brilliant,” “incisive,” or “fearless combat.” However, when a liberal justice—particularly a woman of color—utilizes a similar level of assertiveness or intellectual pushback, it is frequently reframed with highly subjective, tone-policed descriptors like “saucy,” “supercilious,” or “condescending.”
Surely as a lawyer yourself would ‘know’ better.
Dismissing a justice’s legal opinions as a “simplistic understanding” or an “express assertion of how SHE feels” misrepresents the actual nature of modern jurisprudence. Every justice on the Supreme Court, regardless of their judicial philosophy, writes opinions rooted in text, history, and structural interpretation. To reduce her legal arguments to mere “feelings” while assuming her conservative colleagues are operating purely on objective neutrality is an ideological bias in itself. It’s easy to denigrate her opinions when most here can barely read for comprehension is laughable.
Finally, suggesting that I should leave a public forum simply because my views don’t align with the majority of the blog defeats the entire purpose of intellectual discourse. Echo chambers do not foster sharp legal analysis. We already have “anonymous” trolls for that. Engaging with counter-arguments isn’t a “smoke screen”; it is exactly what is required to test whether an argument can actually hold up under scrutiny. You, a lawyer, shouldn’t be reminded of that. Have a good weekend.
Surely a fool like yourself would understand that the score is Lin-9, X-0; Grammarly/Slick Write-No score but abused/misused. You, a pseudo-charlatn, shouldn’t need to be reminded of that.
X, did AI upvote you, or was it your alter ego?
Or maybe someone who just hates those that call out your nonsense?
Suited for what?!
She’s a dimwit and it is readily apparent to all except other dimwits.
X feels he has a right to one Supreme Court justice as dumb as he is. Though a terrible SC judge, there is no way anyone can accuse her of being as dumb as X
“Congressional Democrats Seek to” impose the “dictatorship of the majority,” the “dictatorship of the poor,” the “dictatorship of the proletariat’ and destroy the safeguards in this democratic republic in order to impose the Communist Manifesto in the once-free United States of America.
@anonymous – “Democrat dictatorship” That’s all very possible but you know that citizens uprising everyone is hoping for in Iran, what’s the odds it will happen here first?
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Trump has been abusing his power every day.
Trump lives in your head rent-free.
Is that all you can say when good points and questions are raised?
Good points? I didn’t see any. I saw a few ridiculous bald assertions, but no good points.