Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) has been struggling with other members of the Democratic establishment to appease the far-left radicals in her party. Last week, she insisted that she was not concerned about the rising socialist movement in her party. Sixty-five percent of Democratic voters now support socialism and a shocking 60% would support a military coup. Now Dean is throwing the Supreme Court to the mob, declaring that the institution is “corrupted,” the common claim of court-packers to justify a hostile takeover of the Court. She has joined an ignoble list of politicians who choose personal power over our constitutional principles.
Dean went on MS NOW to show her radical bona fides in an interview with host Jonathan Capehart, who raised the favorite talking point of how the Republicans were seeking to steal the next election.
Dean immediately turned the question into an attack on the Court, expressing her concern “about a United States Supreme Court that has been so corrupted.”
It is a narrative that is entirely unconnected to reality. As I discussed in a recent column, the Court continues not only to rule against this president in major cases but also to rule unanimously or nearly unanimously in the vast majority of cases.
Dean’s criticism of the Court is particularly ironic in the same week the Court again ruled against Republicans in an election case by rejecting, for a third time, the effort to redesign voting districts before the midterm elections.
The false narrative is part of a concerted effort by Democratic politicians to condition voters into accepting court packing. Professors and pundits are now demanding that court-packing be an actual litmus test for Democratic candidates.
The reason is a sad statement about the state of American politics. Presented with the prospect of guaranteeing power for years by rejecting our constitutional values and traditions, politicians like Dean are choosing power.
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.”
It is the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob. Of course, some of these measures would be challenged if done without constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would then have to rule on the effort to pack or limit its members. The expansion can be done by legislative vote. Although most Americans oppose court packing, Democrats view control of the Court as essential to pushing through a radical agenda to change the political system to their advantage.
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.
In the same way that a vast majority of Democratic voters now say that they would favor a military coup in the name of “saving democracy,” Democratic politicians are claiming to protect our constitutional system by destroying it with court packing.
Every leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination has now embraced court-packing, a new litmus test for the far left.
It is the ultimate form of corruption … in politicians like Rep. Dean. Presented with a clear choice between power and principle, they choose power.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
My recommendation is to just not read any anonymous comment. The non-anonymous comments are almost always better quality. It’s easy to do once you get the hang of it. The FOMO fades away with practice.
Liberal, white, left wing, progressive, democrate females. This is the most dangerous demographic in our country. They think our government should be one big social welfare provider. Courtesy of those who work and are producers. We work they take.
#. The dems are forming their platform for the trifecta. Packing the courts for complete power and your dreams come true.
#. The world has morphed into an anthropology class. Presumably we’re doing ethnographic investigation. Throw in Darwin for quirks. It’s quite boring.
Wishing all good wishes…
Republicans already did court packing. Americans want a more balanced SCOTUS— not one controlled by Leo Leonard’s Federalist Society. The Constitution does not contain any certain number of justices and there have been different numbers of judges over the years.
@All “Named Commenters”–
As I said in an earlier remark that may have been lost in the noise, IMHO, it would be best to simply ignore the “so-and-so is Estovir” comments authored by yet another of the plethora “Anonymice,” just to prove/reaffirm to him/her that absolutely NONE of us out here gives a tinker’s dam about that person.
Responding to, or otherwise remarking upon, his/her loony comments only feeds his pathetic ego.
For my part, this will be my very LAST remark regarding the obvious nutcase. Are the rest of you capable of resisting the urge to jump at his/her bait?
DrZee is Estovir
NB: Welcome to JT’s comment section. I’m glad to see another medical scientist contribute to the intellectual corpus (or corpse) of this august forum.
As for the sociopathic paid TDS troll from George Soros’ funded Media Matters, he’s entertaining and a reminder of the dearth of intelligence on the Left. His one trick pony script is repeating what others say about him (aka projection), that and lobbing insults at commenters due to pεηιs envy.
🎶 He’s a one-trick pony
One trick is all that horse can do
He does one trick only
It’s the principal source of his revenue 🎶
I also would like to rescue this comment string from the Anonymous posters, whose primary goals seem to be (1) riding Jonathan’s coattails to oppose him; (2) discouraging everyone else from entering the comments section. Jonathan Turley has a great many interesting things to say, and he has the authority of his learning and deep experience in the law that qualify his opinions. Anonymous has none of these and seldom says anything of value. I suggest that we all ignore him.
Esto vir, by the way, is Latin for “Be a man!”
I am not Estovir. My name is Stewart Baker and I often post as Foredeck.
I have a suggestion—-instead of attacking people who post comments that run counter to the MAGA narrative, why not try to respond with facts?
@Estovir–
Thank you for the clip of Paul Simon singing One Trick Pony –one of my favorite musicians/songwriters, although I guess that I no longer have memory sufficient to remember that song or performance.
But no, I am not a medical scientist. I am a materials scientist with a background in mineralogy and geology. While I DID think about becoming a physician at one time long ago, I decided that minerals and materials are much less complicated to “treat.” And I would have much less responsibility for their “well-being.”
Kindest regards,
DrZee
You would have enjoyed, I think, our former debates on climate change. David B Benson PhD, a EE and computer scientist, and left of center, fought heroically pro climate change. I opposed him from a cardiovascular vantage point and others quoted generously from their chosen sources. We have some edgy debates but they are IMO a pleasant break from our careers. Otherwise I know nothing about geology. Nonetheless the comments section has hosted a good group of folks, many of whom go out of their way to show their reasoned point of view. I cant think of a single person on here with whom I would refuse to break bread. People are essential, interpersonal skills are a must in life. People make life exciting, passions are wonderful dynamics, and mano a mano exchanges make us stronger and wiser. Burning bridges in life is always a mistake, being a hammer that nails everything is sight is a symptom of personality disorder. The one TDS troll on here with his hourly hate and bile is easy to identify regardless of his denials and scores of sock puppets. I personally ignore Anonymous commenters. Thats just me though
Looking forward to learning from you.
Folk and Rock and roll music rule. Cheers
Estovir,
Like you I have enjoyed my exchanges with David Benson though we often differ. I think he relies too much on the NYT but he is intellectually honest. I like that he refuses to engage with the anonymous posters.
I haven’t looked at PP&M the same way since I learned that Peter Yarrow was a federal felon, a convicted pedophile who had married a niece of Presidential hopeful Eugene McCarthy. That might have been the reason Jimmy Carter pardoned him.
Is there a man here that allows his wife and children to run the family?
What the —- happened, America?
The Greeks established democracy in 508 B.C. with strict voter-eligibility requirements intended to preserve social order, limit majority rule, and prevent poorer citizens from dominating political decision-making.
Mad Dean?
Seriously?
Leader of the Free World?
Of course, why not?
Turnout in 1789 was 11.6% by design.
Voters were required, generally by state, to be Male, European, and 21, with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.
George Washington was elected president.
For heaven’s sake, you mean £50! 50 lbs is an avoirdupois measure of weight.
I do so apologize sincerely for the Americanized version.
I do not have the English pound symbol available.
I stand corrected.
I am deeply in your debt.
The public is often portrayed as “fickle”, as characterized by changing poll results. Poll results can change dramatically depending on how the questions are phrased, something that push-pollers rely on. Another aspect of polling is illustrated by the result that 60% of Democrats would support a military coup. I have no doubt that 60% of Democrats are very angry with Trump (many whipped into a blind frenzy by the media), and that the 60% are sending a message about how angry they are. If the question included some background information, such as “Historians estimate that 85% of military coups end in authoritarian rule”, that 60% would drop dramatically; as much as they hate Trump, deep down they know that an actual dictator would be much, much worse.
Or maybe not. I think most people, like me, view polls as impotent and meaningless, and therefore a good way to harmlessly let off some steam with an angry response to an antagonizing question.
On the other hand, if you take the 60% seriously and want something more to worry about, historians estimate that a military coup is twice as likely to succeed in a democracy, and this is often cited as one of the major reasons democracies have failed throughout history. This makes sense, as the civil rights protections in democracies make it much harder to put down a coup. Benjamin Franklin’s offhand comment belied a deep knowledge of history.
So if you have not figured it out. Anonymous is a foreign entity that attempts to get a response with posting their idiotic and juvenile claims. This is a form of phishing. When you reply they attempt to corrupt your system and steal your information. Probably a Ukranian or European scam scheme.
Is it just me, or is there something inherently ludicrous about an ad hominem attack against “anonymous”?
When Ben Franklin said we are a republic if we can keep it, what he meant is that we are a government of laws, not men, if we can keep it. Our Republic’s supreme court is the last remaining branch we can expect to continue holding to Franklin’s admonition. To pack it with ideologues who will rule based upon the behests of men and not the Constitution is the historical path that leads to restraining individualism in order to favor collectivism. Levelers are right to have concerns about social inequalities and distinctions but are duped into believing it is possible to remove them. Human nature is such that there will always be a socioeconomic hierarchy of one kind or another tasking itself to rule the masses. Socialism’s socioeconomic hierarchy, however, is the one that threatens individuality the most. All would be socialists are advised to tread lightly for the sake of preserving their own individuality.
The famed Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises (1888–1973), did not live to witness the beginnings of our 21st Century but he did leave us with words for it: “Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.”
Ben Franklin meant that America was a severely restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one-man, one-vote democracy or “dictatorship of the majority,” that is, the poor.
The only purpose of the vote was to elect people committed to supporting and perpetuating the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which severely limit and restrict government while providing maximal freedom to individuals.
The Supreme Court has failed to support the Constitution while imposing mass socialism in the forms of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the balance of the communist American welfare state including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Fed, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare”—ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY “the Value of money,” “Commerce (i.e. buying and selling only) with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
America has been “SOCIALIST”–the goal of which is communism–since 1912 and Woodrow Wilson.
This might be a good time to review Prof. Turley’s proposal for a 19-member SCOTUS: https://buckleybeacon.com/2017/11/16/jonathan-turley-on-expanding-the-supreme-court/
(I’ve stayed at the Omni Hotel. It’s a convenient few blocks from the courthouse and has all the office amenities you might need for document preparation and production.)
This might be a good time to [lie, yet again, about] Prof. Turley’s proposal . . .”
Now your statement is accurate.
“Professor Turley: My proposal would expand the current court from 9 to 19 members…”
You can pull a single quote from anyone to justify anything. It’s called dropping the context, and misrepresenting their argument.
In your attempt to smear JT, you are equivocating between “expand the Court” and “pack the Court.” And, like the other deceivers, you omit the details of his proposal to *expand* the Court. And you ignore his *reasons* for expanding Court — as opposed to the Left’s power-grab motivations.
Those gross omissions make you, as with the others, intellectually dishonest.
fascinating proposal thank you
Antonin Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1986 before the Senate lifted the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017. In between he championed originalism to find the law of the Constitution, and textualism to find the meaning of statutes. Legislative history was not seen as a reliable guide. So persuasive was his approach, in 2015 Justice Elaina Kagan said “we’re all textualists now”, although in 2022 she said “it seems I was wrong” in disagreement with how a majority opinion treated textualism. With the filibuster gone and a conservative majority on the Court, it is no surprise that Democrats return- again- to the FDR era idea of court packing. That’s all that’s left to get their political policy preferences back into play in the counter majoritarian side of the triangle branches of government. There is an expression in Texas that when the Legislature is in session the life, liberty and property of no one is safe. Along with that tongue in cheek expression is the suggestion that our Constitution of 1876 has a typo. It reads that the Legislature convenes regular session for 10 weeks every 2 years. It should read 2 weeks every 10 years. That said, this writer submits that the real issue is what way of finding the law begets limited government. Limits that seek to maximize our liberty. For example the Bruen decision on the 2d Amendment. Or the Major Questions doctrine for statutes. In each instance the law says there is a way to do it right. You just haven’t done it. In one, take the trouble to amend the Constitution. In the other, Congress, if you want it, say so clearly. How much truth in adjudication is delivered from a “living constitution” or cobbling together “legislative history”?
“She has joined an ignoble list of politicians who choose personal power over our constitutional principles.”
Turley can sometimes make me laugh. Like many columnists, he frequently appears to be ivory tower isolated, and/or naive: quite distant from the vantage point of a typical objective observer of political events. In my considered opinion, the above statement is a pretty much textbook definition of all politicians, period. The only variable is what a specific politician calculates will enhance or detract from his or her personal power at any given time.
Another example is this stunning revelation from Ken Buck of the Epoch Times (by way of Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge):
“The Socialist Indoctrination Machine: Schools Are Teaching Young People To Embrace Big Government, Hate Capitalism”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/socialist-indoctrination-machine-schools-are-teaching-young-people-embrace-big-government
No, seriously? That has only been pervasive in the US public education system for 60 years in my personal experience, and I suspect it started significantly before I was aware of it.
The enthusiasm for “socialism” is rather authoritarianism’s path for enhancing capitalism’s death grip on the working class. Democratic politicians don social justice rhetoric the same way that prostitutes apply lipstick and perfume. The Democratic Party is a corporate entity that purchases (and otherwise enforces) mass delusion. The Kama LaLa experience should have been sobering to the mass of voters such that she would never show her face in public again, and all of her supporters would have retired from electoral politics permanently. Democrats are leftists in the sense that Hitler was a patriot. The cleansing is well under weigh.
Pure, non-legal opinion from me today.
This whole thing about “socialism” has reached a level of farcity (is that a word? farcism? The plain word of farce seemed insufficient).
True that socialism used to feed the fervor of have-nots and wannabes that wanted to share the wealth they never earned or contributed to.
But in the last decade or so, the movement seems to have been increasingly led by a class of highly visible, often wealthy persons who continue to take control of academia, business, media, and governmental offices. (The takeover of MSM is to me the most consequential. Now add to that the expansion of the SCOTUS Judicial branch to cement a new interpretation of law.)
To what end?
Is it truly altruism and “equality” that motivates this? ?
Or is it self-promotion and power, using the useful idiots of altruistic Equality and Justice as the more respectable, palatable vehicles to achieve control?
The misuse of the word “democracy” has been a serious tool in advancing this movement. The sleight of hand evolution of our country’s formation from amorphism, to bipartisanship, to semantic gamesmanship and overlap, to One Party control–spreads beneath us, like a sink hole waiting to find the weakest terrain.
I think you’re looking for fartitousness. 😂
Farcical level
#. It’s Theater of the Absurd, Albert Camusas an example, Lin. 1950s, existentialism. Life is meaningless.
The problem with theater of the absurd is life does have meaning.
I’m anonymous and it’s annoying to many. I’ll refrain from comments. I really can’t tolerate even one more sign in.
Any person who has been paying attention knows that the court is way out of it’s Constitutional bounds by imposing their political preferences instead of the law.
Anyone? I’ve paid attention for a long time and you aren’t accurate in your assumption. You’re saying anyone who disagrees with you is not worthy of credibility—that’s closed mindedness
Water is wet. If you disagree with me you are not worthy of credibility. Same thing with SCOTUS. I have zero respect for those who deny objective facts.
I think the Prof is trying to make too much of the admittedly shocking single poll result that suggest a majority of Dems would favor a military coup. As in every science replication of results is important to assure that the results are accurate and meaningful. (Admittedly assigning polling the status of a science may be a stretch) In general, can you imagine leftist Dems relying on the military? Torches and pitchforks, sure, but the military? I’m just not buying that poll, and Turley risks fanning the rage flames that he claims to decry.
Liberal women also claimed they’d rather meet a bear in the wild than a white male. I kind of doubt that’s true, too, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they voted for hungry bears on a ballot just out of spite.
I’m thinking about starting the Grizzly Woman Party. To join, one has to take an elevator with a hungry bear. Natural selection will decide who gets in.
“Liberal women also claimed they’d rather meet a bear in the wild than a white male. ”
I never saw that poll. Is it possible that the majority of respondents were lesbians merely expressing a preference to be schlepped rather than schtupped?
LOL! Possibly. Thanks for the laugh 😉
Professor Turley is not only making too much of the poll he is not describing the polling question related to the military in an objective and accurate manner even though many commenters in his September 24 blog post told him about this problem.
“I’m just not buying that poll . . .”
That survey was conducted by a *Leftist* organization (the Center for Strategic Politics), well-known for polling democrats. What motivation do they have to skew the results?
Or is that just an arbitrary doubt to rationalize smearing JT with this: “fanning the rage flames . . .”
The only “fanning” here is the Left stoking a violent uprising.
Ah yes, Eve’s Apple —> computers.
Got get back to work! Adieu me hardys. ☺
This election should be strongly framed as a choice between an American’s personal liberty as outlined in our founding principles versus the collectivism of socialism. Doing so would more likely than not help independent, free-thinking voters make their decision.
The object of the Democrats is not to expand the Court. That has failed before. The object is to intimidate the current members of the Court into greenlighting unconstitutional legislation, e.g., a wealth tax. That kind if intimidation DID work before.
Prof. Turley should be clearer in the sources of his survey information and the population actually surveyed.
Was this an online survey in Mother Jones? Or a phone survey of some breadth and a degree of validation?
Were these likely voters? In what way did they identify themselves as Democrats? What I have seen is that the current breakdown is 30% Democrat, 30% Republican, 40% Independent. So, a 60% response in 30% of the population gives an 18% response. Still oddly high, but not as alarming. How many Independents support a military coup?
Inflating numbers is one propaganda method for inciting the rage he cautions about.
“Was this . . .”
It takes all of 60 second to discover the sources of those two polls.
But your desire is not to know. Your desire is to smear JT. So you just list a bunch of passive-aggressive questions.
Rep. Madeleine Dean
Representative for Pennsylvania’s 4th District
Dean is the representative for Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district and is a Democrat. She has served since Jan. 3, 2019. Dean is next up for reelection in 2026 and serves until Jan. 3, 2027. She is 67 years old.
Biography:
Madeline Dean was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1959.[1] She earned her B.A. in English language and literature from La Salle University in 1981 and her J.D. from Widener University School of Law in 1984. Her professional experience includes working as a professor, as a lawyer, and as a columnist. She served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from 2012 to 2018.
Dist. Map: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/PA/4
Ref.:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/madeleine_dean/412809
[Link] ballotpedia.org/Madeleine_Dean
I thought LaSalle University was a mail-order school that used to advertise on matchbooks.