Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has added schoolyard taunts to his call to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. Last week, Whitehouse denounced former President Joe Biden and other Democrats for being “too chicken” to pack the Court and, in the view of many of us, destroy the institution that has been critical to the success of this Republic for 250 years.
The Lever’s David Sirota, a former speechwriter and adviser to Bernie Sanders, set the table for Whitehouse by asking him about how the public can join the resistance to the Court, which is “enabling an anti-democratic project.” With that, Whitehouse was off to the chicken races:
“Well, I think it starts with truth telling and I think the chief executive of the United States has the proverbial bully, the bulliest of all pulpits, and should be prepared to make the argument about what has gone wrong with the courts. The Biden administration was highly reluctant to do that. They completely chickened out. Biden set up that lame committee commission on the Supreme Court and then squelched both Judge Gertner and Professor Tribe when they wanted to describe some of the actual problems at the court so that they couldn’t even get that into the report.”
He then added:
“The Biden people didn’t want to go there. They were completely chicken about all that. They wanted no part of that. And it — really wasn’t until the very end, in his last speech after he and Harris had both lost that Biden seemed to have at least somewhat awakened to the fact that the Supreme Court had a real integrity problem.”
The one thing upon which we agree is that the Biden commission was a sham. At the time, I wrote a piece entitled “Is Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Packed to Fail?” I wrote about how the Administration assembled an array of far-left faculty to debate radical changes to the Court. It was breathlessly followed by the press and many on the left as figures like Tribe denounced the Court as fundamentally broken. Of course, few of these voices, including Tribe, held those views when the Court ruled their way with a liberal majority.
The commission appeased the rising radical left in the Democratic Party in a classic Washington death-by-commission strategy. They produced a report that few read and then went back to their respective faculties as happy social warriors.
It is also not surprising that Whitehouse would single out Laurence Tribe, who has attacked conservatives in vulgar terms (as well as other professors like myself). This has included religious attacks and false statements that required public corrections. He has also called for Trump and others to be charged with an endless array of crimes from attempted murder to treason.
Whitehouse was an early champion of the partisan court-packing scheme. His obsession with the plan is telling. Whitehouse has actively spread the false narrative that the justices are, to use Dean Erwin Chemerinsky’s description, partisan “hacks.” (Chemerinsky was also a member of the ill-considered commission).
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.
The portrayal of the voting pattern of conservatives as raw politics is an old saw on Capitol Hill. In the confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse raised this issue, asking, “When is a pattern evidence of bias?” Whitehouse noted a voting pattern by the five conservative justices who “go raiding off together.” Whitehouse denounced how the “Roberts Five” of “Republican appointees” join in such decisions and “no Democratic appointee joins them.” He simply ignored the “Ginsburg Four” on the other side of most of those opinions. Those liberal justices are not ideologues because they are treated as manifestly right.
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 Whitehouse are choosing power.
James Carville 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.”
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.
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.
Notably, the far left is now turning on those establishment politicians who are not showing commitment to this agenda, even when they are mouthing the same rhetoric. It is the historic problem with pandering to the left. These demands create an insatiable appetite for radical change, and figures like Whitehouse will continue to fuel the rage against those, even in his own party, who show any hesitation or qualms at this moment.
Whitehouse is right that many in the Democratic Party do not “want to go” where he wants to lead them. After 250 years of the most successful Republic in history, Sheldon Whitehouse wants others to join him in a fevered demolition project. If you even pump the brakes, you are chicken in Sheldon Whitehouse’s mad rush for the constitutional cliff.
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.”
Was relieved to see this comment was from Sheldon Whitehouse not the current Whitehouse!
It is not just Whitehouse.
Kamala Harris calls for packing Supreme Court, ‘changing’ Electoral College if Dems take back congress
“The work that we can do about winning back the House and the Senate is going to be on a number of things. For example, I believe that we need to expand the Supreme Court. We need more justices on the Supreme Court so that we can have a court that actually reinforces the spirit and principles behind the Constitution of the United States,” Harris told podcast host Keke Palmer on her “Baby, This is Keke Palmer” podcast.
“I believe that we should be pushing for what is possible around changing the Electoral College. Right?
“It’s about, the popular vote has to matter, right? You know, all the things that make people feel, like, overwhelmed, and does their vote matter? We have, you know, listen, if the folks there want it, we should be pushing for statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C., right? These are some of the things that are structural that we need to do, but we need to reestablish affordable child care,” Harris added.
She said that last Tuesday.
What she calls “spirit and principles behind the Constitution of the United States,” the rest of us call one party rule.
Theirs.
https://nypost.com/2026/10/14/media/kamala-harris-calls-for-packing-supreme-court-changing-electoral-college-if-dems-take-back-congress/
So pasting an article is some how … so what? And what is your point?
What people forget is the constitution says the president nominates and the senate advises and consents. So, as with all the other liberal proposals it doesn’t matter what they want for at least the next two years. The current president will obviously appoint conservatives and the senate, if controlled by democrats will reject. Unlike legislation that congress may pass, the 2/3 requirement is not applicable for supreme court nominations.
I wonder why the media does not point this out to the public. I know a rhetorical question. Obviously the democrats won’t point it out. It also shows how bad the education system is in teaching the constitution.
“. . . pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.” (JT)
Now come the Deceptive Ones who hope you do not see the difference between “pack” the Court and “expand” the Court. Who then use that equivocation to fool you into believing that: the Constitution permits packing the Court; conservatives have packed the Court; JT once argued for packing the Court.
Leftists excel at intellectual con games.
Sam,
I would argue they attempt to excel at intellectual con games but fail. We see through them for their phony arguments, roll our eyes and just read past them. Same reason we do not watch, listen, read MSM.
Wouldn’t it be easier for the Democrats to impeach and remove the Supreme Court Justices, and replace them with Democrat Socialist Party members?
No it would not. How did you come up with such a stupid idea?
Anonymous,
Well, if the Democrats took my suggestion, they could have a Supreme Court that declared the following to be unconstitutional: First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Electoral College, and Supremacy Clause.
Why would dems take your suggestion? Beside, what makes you think you’re smarter than the entire DNC, a couple million brains are a lot smarter than a single unknown commenter.
Maybe not directly taking Stephen B. Benisch suggestion but they are calling for packing the court and other like things to “change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.”
Just look at what Kamala Harris said last Tuesday,
Kamala Harris calls for packing Supreme Court, ‘changing’ Electoral College if Dems take back congress
“The work that we can do about winning back the House and the Senate is going to be on a number of things. For example, I believe that we need to expand the Supreme Court. We need more justices on the Supreme Court so that we can have a court that actually reinforces the spirit and principles behind the Constitution of the United States,” Harris told podcast host Keke Palmer on her “Baby, This is Keke Palmer” podcast.
“I believe that we should be pushing for what is possible around changing the Electoral College. Right?
“It’s about, the popular vote has to matter, right? You know, all the things that make people feel, like, overwhelmed, and does their vote matter? We have, you know, listen, if the folks there want it, we should be pushing for statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C., right? These are some of the things that are structural that we need to do, but we need to reestablish affordable child care,” Harris added.
https://nypost.com/2026/10/14/media/kamala-harris-calls-for-packing-supreme-court-changing-electoral-college-if-dems-take-back-congress/
One can only look at history to see what packing the court would accomplish. FDR wanted to increase the size of court and then pack it with democrats and could have done that but senate and house democrats talked him out of it. He still achieved it by subsequently selecting 7 new judges to the Supreme Court during his 12 years in office. Yet Republicans still won offices, and senate and house seats and by 1952 elected a president. Even the Supreme Court, picked by FDR, ruled against Truman when he seized the steel mills in 1952 to prevent a strike. You would have to do more than just expand the court to seize and hold power forever and those other things you would have to do to hold power would likely generate severe opposition. In a federal system, the states still retain significant power and that would also provide a strong check on the Supreme Court and the federal government and lead the opposition. Lastly, if their decisions became outrageous, then people and states would simply ignore SCOTUS, and force the feds to use armed force to enforce court decisions. The states would likely use their national guards. Then you have to wonder who’s orders will they follow.
Armies do not always support the government. You can change generals all you want but they are not the ones on the street being asked to fire at their fellow citizens. Sometime they just sit things out or go totally against the government.
What strikes me with your comment, it has the makings of fiction novel.
GEB,
When I was in the Marines, one of my NCO classes was about following lawful orders, what is a lawful order and what is a unlawful order.
IF the illiberal leftist Democrats were to enact “a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” and whomever was president, called for the military to fire upon those who disagreed with the premise, I would not follow those orders as they are un-Constitutional.
As I have stated before, I do NOT want a one party rule, be it Republican or Democrat. I would rather see a multi-party option than the two party system we have now. But I see what the illiberal leftists are pushing, to include some establishment Democrats, as a real threat to our Constitution.
Of interesting note, actor Matthew McConaughey recently said,
“The No. 1 political identity in America today is not Republican. It is not Democrat. It is independent,”
“So independents belong in the fight — not as a protest, not as a spoiler — but as a real and potential winner, on the ballot and considered seriously by us,”
As an Independent, I believe he is right.
When you think about it, Whitehouse and Biden are very similar:
If Whitehouse is the main exponent for court packing, along with Eric Holder and James Carville, you must admit, others fear being tagged with the blight of swamp life.
You don’t like Republican policies? Well you can always vote them out next time or back a different Republican in the next election. But if you vote in these Democrats they will change the mechanisms of governance so they can’t be voted out. They are the major threat to our Constitutional Republic.
Dear Professor Turley, My question to you is, when will you renounce your membership and support of the very party attempting to destroy the Bill of Rights, Constitution and the Judiciary?
Why should he or anyone? Assume for a minute your Trump did something you abhor, would you quit the Reps then?
“Something”?
I struggle to see a single thing the Dems stand for that anyone can support. They are on the wrong side of multiple 80/20 issues in this Country. It’s a huge reason why the most recent generation is more conservative than their parents for the first time in US history since tracking of attitudes began.
Republicans often complain about their elected officials. The massive difference is when a Dem steps off the plantation they are lambasted, no matter if they support all but 1 issue.
To make it worse, Dems own platform is massively contradictory! They claim they’ll make things “affordable” while also pushing for higher taxes and “green” energy. Green energy will crush the economy and higher taxes will disproportionally affect the poor and middle class. They claim to represent women while advocating for transgender men in women’s spaces/sports/etc.
If the media had an ounce of integrity, or if the Dems actually listened to their own voters (cough cough the SAVE ACT), it would be a massacre. But the Dems can count on the media running cover for them and their own voters ignoring all forms of logic, critical thinking, and any kind of rational thought.
since the Democrats are so hellbent on packing the court, why don’t the Republicans accommodate them by packing it now, while they still have a majority in both houses?
Alternatively, Whitehouse, Rhode Island’s leading chicken plucker, should be thoroughly intimate with varieties of domestic poultry…
Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Red, should be quite familiar with varieties of domestic poultry…
Just going to be blunt. Sheldon Whitehouse is a fascist and so are many of his colleagues-almost all. I know the professor doesn’t call people that, but it’s an accurate description.
Turley frames court-packing as an unprecedented “demolition project” targeting an institution that has stood unchanged for 250 years. He omits the historical fact that the size of the Supreme Court has been changed by Congress seven times throughout American history. The Constitution does not fix the court at nine seats; it was fluctuated by political majorities between six and ten seats until 1869 to match shifting political and geographical needs.
It has changed a couple of times. It can change again for whatever reason if a Democratic majority with enough seats chooses. Despite Turley’s protestations and fear mongering it is highly unlikely it will happen in the near future.
Turley accuses Democrats of selectively wanting to change the rules to secure power, he completely leaves out the unprecedented 2016 Senate blockade of nominee Merrick Garland. By refusing to hold hearings for nearly a year on a vacancy under a Democratic president, the Republican-led Senate effectively altered the size of the court to eight members for a political cycle—a maneuver critics describe as “de facto” court-packing. The irony is delicious.
Turley bashes liberal professors for only calling the court “broken” when a conservative majority rules against them. Yet, Turley is practicing the exact same ideological flip-flop. He spent years criticizing the previous, more liberal courts for “judicial activism” and “overstepping boundaries” on executive power, but now praises the conservative majority’s rulings as neutral, outcome-independent “consensus”.
Turley did not spare Ginsburg herself from public tongue-lashings when she stepped outside his view of judicial decorum.
It seems, Turley’s criticisms are mostly criticisms from the perspective of political convenience rather than integrity. It’s certainly not a surprise.
Of course he’s mostly targeting the left. Their idea of constitutional is agreeing with them regardless of what the constitution says. They’re trying to put political hacks on the Court who will always vote liberal regardless of the law. It’s the same reason they want to make extra states, to end the electoral college and the filibuster. They’re about power and radicalism. I seriously mean it, when I say they mean to kill people, and they will, including the “useful idiots” who support them now.
How is that different than what Republicans do? The put right-leaning political hacks and cherry-pick only the best conservative ones based on what the federalist society recommends.
Make extra states? Huh? Have you heard Trump? He literally wanted to make Canada an extra state. Power? Radicalism? Declaring to want Canada to be our 51st state because he just wanted to isn’t radical, is it?
make new states? Literally? Declaring? Now what makes you declare that dumbo?
Yeah, you didn’t know that? I’m shocked. Trump made it a thing for months. It’s the thing that got Canada upset when he started calling the Canadian prime minister “Governor.”
Google is your friend.
For someone who thinks he has credibility, you sure do suck at proving it X. You think a couple links is all it takes? Your comments are juvenile and shallow. That you constantly get called out as a liar and then resort to word games and insults. And to say the least highly questionable. Flubbing people off with a go to goggle is proof positive you are incompetent and a fraud. And then, who truly belies that google is unbiased and that you use it just proves you lack smarts and credibility.
Funny thing X, you come here daily, all day long, spewing insane lies about Turley. Why is it you don’t have your own blog? You suck off Turley’s blog because you’re a jealous psychopath demanding attention. Not once has Turley took notice of you and that pisses you off. He’s a law professor and you? An anonymous psycho …
Funny how you keep showing up every time I post. Every day. Weird.
What are the lies? You keep saying that but never show what it is that I lied about regarding this topic with Turley.
I don’t care about Turley ‘not noticing me’. Turley never answers to anyone on the blog. What I do know is there are others who read this blog besides the regular commenters, you know those millions who view this blog daily according to Turley.
It’s not about “attention” or “jealousy”. It’s just plain old fashioned opinion and fair game criticism of Turley. You know, the thing he’s well known for, supporting free speech and the expression of diverse and opposing points of view. Right?
Not about attention? Then why are you here slandering Turley.
Life must really suck for you. Being a nobody huh? An old boy who spews lies and tries to slander Turley. All you can do is lie to get attention.
Slandering? LOL!! You mean criticism. That’s not slander. Your’e seriously confused.
Plus, what are the lies? You keep leaving that out.
As I have always said. Turley is fair game for criticism. Always.
It’s part of that free speech thing Turley is so fond of. You didn’t know that? I think you’re more upset about the fact you are intolerant of others point of view or opposing views. Turley calls people like you…Democrats. Why are you being such a Democrat?
So glad I’m not one.
X you’re a fraud, your comments are juvenile and full of lies. Everybody knows that here.
Again…what are the lies on this topic?
It seems you’re more upset about your ineptitude than what I post. Because you can’t seem to post anything of substance regarding the topic.
The lies? That you posted it? You should prove what you post, not anyone else.
I’ve read some, and know for a fact you are a pathological liar. Why would I or anyone waste time playing your childish games.
Again, you have google right at your fingertips. I even showed you some Turley’s articles.
You’re just upset about the fact you can’t rebut what I posted. It’s your game man. Not mine. You’re the one having issues with not being able to exercise critical thinking skills.
Throwing a tantrum because can’t provide anything of substance is not an argument.
When one proves you wrong with your own words, GSX, all you do is run.
Example: “Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon”
GSX, you are a runner. When you lie and are found to be lying, you are afraid to face the truth, so you run. Do I have to bring up “Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon” again?
There is much to challenge in your post. But I will focus on 2 points. Yes, the Constitution does not specify the number of seats, but if it needs to be changed, there is a common sense way to increase it as opposed to the nonsensical way. Senator Ron Wyden’s 2024 proposal to expand the court from 9 to 15 justices, with 6 new seats filled gradually over 12 years (through 3 presidential terms) is a sensible way which could gain bi-partisan support if the workload dictates a need. But perhaps it will no longer be necessary if technology increases productivity.
Additionally, Republican inaction on the 2016 Garland nomination by Obama was not ‘unprecedented’ as suggested. It is extremely rare for a nomination to take place in a presidential election year and even more rare in an election year where the President isn’t eligible for re-election. And even in the cases where the president was eligible for re-election, the nomination was in January or February. The only example I found like Obama’s was Johnson in 1968, but he withdrew both nominations.
In other words, no president who wasn’t eligible for re-election, ever nominated a candidate in an election year and had them confirmed. In fact here is a quote from Biden from a few years ago: “Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.”
Michael,
Wyden’s proposal is a gradual approach. Professor Turley has called for increasing the court’s size. But….the constitution does NOT say any approach MUST be gradual. Right? If, and I emphasize IF Democrats had enough seats and chose to increase the size of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop they could do so. Nothing in the Constitution says they must do it gradually.
The Republican inaction with the Garland nomination was indeed unprecedented. Mitch McConnell made up the rules as he went. When Justice Barrett was nominated McConnell again, made up rules to rush Barrett onto the Bench.
It doesn’t matter whether Biden or McConnell says something. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution citing the kinds of rules both of them stated. It’s not even written in law.
Well, Lyndon Johnson and Earl Warren cooked up a scheme in 1968 to put Abe Fortas in the Chief Justice seat and some other chap in the opened associate justice seat. There was quite a bit of hullabaloo in Congress over it and the scheme failed. After Nixon was inaugurated and Fortas’ wife was put in danger of indictment, Warren and Fortas decided to git. The Nixon Administration had four appointments to the court, of which they squandered three.
Merrick Garland was told he’d have to wait ten months for a confirmation vote and be renominated by BO’s successor. He was otherwise left in peace in his position on the Court of Appeals. The Democrats were incensed because they fancied they could take a piece off the board with Mr. Justice Scalia’s sudden death.
It is so telling that the Democrats decry the 5 conservative (more or less) Justices voting together often without seeing that the liberal 3 ALWAYS vote in unison, even when the case at hand is open and shut based against their argument. The 5 will peel off many times for many different reasons whereas the 3 never dissent from their ends based decisions.
It was the same thing when the court had a liberal majority. Conservatives were always yammering about that ‘inconsistency’ in court rulings, including Turley.
Calling for a more balanced court by adding justices to balance conservative and liberal views equally would be a better way to settle the issue. But conservatives don’t want that.
Got facts to support that claim?
Sure.
Long before Turley began calling current liberal proposals to expand the Court a “fevered demolition project,” he authored an op-ed actively arguing that the 9-justice structure gave the Court far too much unchecked power.
Written in the wake of the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision and high-profile Obamacare battles, Turley noted that a national poll showed the public “overwhelmingly opposes how the court functions”. He actively criticized the immense power of “just five unelected individuals” and proposed nearly doubling the size of the Court to dilute its impact—the exact structural manipulation he denounces today.
“Reclaiming our own birthright: We might need to amend the Constitution”(Published in [The Hill](https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/5815807-reclaiming-our-own-birthright-we-might-need-to-amend-the-constitution/ “The Hill Opinion Column”)).
He wrote that for believers in the “living constitution,” structural text means nothing: “If you believe in continually updating the Constitution from the bench to meet contemporary demands, constitutional language is barely a speed bump on your path to the preferred outcome in any given case.”
You can find more by googling it. It’s right at your fingertips.
So it pasting irrelevant articles is proof of what? I suppose being stupid?
Irrelevant? You asked for facts. There they are. Did you even read them?
You’re not illiterate are you? I doubt I can find some Turley articles with pictures on them.
You’re frothing at the mouth X….. anon got you all pissed off again. Your comments are just empty BS.
Nope. It’s’ just anon, or you playing the stupid “got facts” game. You don’t care about facts. “Anon” is more obsessed with my posts than anything else.
Plus…it’s evidence that “anon” doesn’t can’t refute the facts. So he/she lashes out in frustration by making petty and childish taunts and whining. It’s pretty sad actually.
X you’re back to playing games. If you had facts then support them with sourcing, but you never do that. Why? You’ve been called a liar here non-stop. But haven’t proven anything. Your comments are just verbal garbage. No sources, no credibility.
Why should anyone have to refute your nonexistent facts?
Because you’re playing games. And you are not interested in any facts. That’s how you roll. No matter how much you are provided you’re not going to accept it because you don’t want to accept the truth.
I think you are mixing up 2 different things. Turley’s article today was about ‘court packing’. That is a reference to the ignorant idea of increasing the size of the court and immediately filling it with idealogue justices. Turley’s article was much more thoughtful with ways to dilute power, manage turnover, and temper the high-stakes current process.
What would stop the Republicans from expanding the court to, say, 23 justices? And then the Dems to 33 and so on. Soon the court would look like Congress with committees and sub committees holding public hearings to decide which cases to grant cert to. Instead of amicus briefs, interest groups would be allowed to testify before sub committees and each justice would give a speech meant for public consumption. It would destroy the court. Hey wait. Isn’t that the ultimate goal of this legislation?
“What would stop the Republicans from expanding the court”: the supreme court.
No. The Supreme Court would be powerless to stop Republicans from expanding the court if they wanted.
Powerless, really? Got facts? Didn’t think so. And you’re a constitutional lawyer and knwo that as a fact? Then show em.
Ummm…the constitution gives congress the power to expand the court by however number of justices they want. There is literally no limit to how many.
You can read the constitution for yourself, if that is, you can read. Good luck.
Read? Then why didn’t you just link a source? Another instance of you pretending to be smart and resorting to lies. You trip over yourself nonstop.
You need a link to the constitution? Really? Are you that helpless? This is the Information Age. You should be able to find the information you want as easily as you can breathe.
Apparently you’re not that smart.
What would stop the Republicans from expanding the court further? You assume that free and fair elections would continue after the Dems gain power. Not likely. The point of this power play is to make it impossible for Republicans win the majority again. We would effectively become a one party state like California or Venezuela. The Constitutional limits on government authority and power would become a dead letter. The amendments and Bill of Rights would be ignored as well. Say goodbye to free speech and the right to bear arms. This election and the next is for all the marbles. Vote like your life depends on, because this time it does.
For Fascism to succeed, the far-left Democrats need the stamp of approval of the Supreme Court. It is the last institution charged with preserving the Constitutional history of the United States. Democrats like Whitehouse know that for their Fascism to be deemed “Constitutional” they need a court packed with Fascist ideologues like Ketanji Brown Jackson, to rubber-stamp their agenda and ignore the foundational document upon which the nation was built.
Fascist ideologues like Ketanji Brown Jackson … and you that how?
So you’re an….ANTIFA warrior? Wow.
So you’re an….anti-ANTIFA warrior? Wow.
The Democrats don’t need to pack the Supreme Court. They have already perverted the lower courts, the appeals courts and have three total idiots that hate the Constitution on the Supreme Court. What else do they need?
“They were driven beyond all bounds of moderation by the apprehension of the return of power …” Edmund Burke
Sheldon Whitehouse is, and always has been, scum. The only surprise is that RI has made him a senator.
Shelley was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Upper East upbringing, member of the all white Baileys Beach Club in Newport
So what?
Scum huh? Takes scum to know scum.
You prove your point!
He’s a lawyer / politician who has been collecting public sector salaries since 1982. He was a staff attorney in the Rhode Island attorney-general’s office for some years; that’s the closest he’s come to an ordinary civil service position. Elected office, patronage positions. You see these characters all over the place in the Democratic Party. They’re less common among Republicans, but seem to occupy most of the gatekeeper positions (John Thune, Kevin McCarthy, John Thune, and Trent Lott being examples). These are NOT the sort of people we should have in public office.
==
What’s distressing about bluebloods like Whitehouse is that they’re very seldom advocates of the country’s heritage. The best you seem to do among them would be multidirectional placators like Amory Houghton and Christine Todd Whitman. The Bush clan give you a family full of them.