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.”
Packing the court is the least important reform the court needs. Term limits, jurisdiction reform, weakening their ability to strike down laws are all more important.
Good old Sheldon Whitehouse never learned to engage his brain before opening his mouth.
Good old Sheldon Whitehouse never learned to engage his brain before opening his mouth.
I wrote a comment earlier that was never posted, which is unfortunately common. The gist was: the SCOTUS is already “packed” with Leo Leonard Federalist Society vetted judges, who were chosen specifically because they would reverse Roe v. Wade and otherwise support the MAGA “Project 2025” agenda that Trump lied about knowing, and then hired the architects thereof and signed 180 Executive Orders on day one that they put together. When Scalia died in February, 2016, Mitch McConnell denied Obama a replacement, citing the proximity of the election the following November in which power might shift, so it would be unfair to make a lifetime appointment to the bench. When Ruth Bader Ginsberg died on September 18, 2020, the “proximity to the election” rule was tossed, and that’s how we got Barrett. Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh all told Senators who interviewed them that Roe v. Wade was “settled law” and that they would abide by stare decisis, and then reversed it.
Turley criticizes Professor Tribe, whose treatises on Constitutional law are authoritative. He taught the following Constitutional law at Harvard: President Barak Obama, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Merrick Garland, Former Solicitor General Kathleen Sullivan, Congressman Jamie Raskin, Senator Adam Schiff, among others. Here’s what a piece says about Professor Tribe and his influence on American law:
“Tribe’s influence extended beyond these individuals; his courses and mentorship shaped generations of legal leaders, including future judges, legislators, and legal scholars news.harvard.edu+1. His teaching style and scholarship, particularly through his landmark 1978 treatise American Constitutional Law, have been cited as foundational in the field Wikipedia+1.
In short, Tribe’s constitutional law classroom produced some of the most prominent figures in modern U.S. legal and political life, many of whom have shaped constitutional interpretation and governance at the highest levels.”
The Constitution does not contain any specific number of SCOTUS justices, and the number has varied over the years. Turley uses the phrase “court packing” in a negative sense, since the MAGA media he writes for love the ultra right wing bent of the current court, but the majority of Americans have a negative view of the current SCOTUS, and want change. Adding justices who are not right wing extremists is one way to do just that, and there is no Constitutional impediment to doing so.
Most decisions in which leftoids have an emotional investment are unjustified and properly reversed. Roe is foremost among them. So are the bon bons for the gay lobby (Bowers, Obergefell).
Turley criticizes Professor Tribe, whose treatises on Constitutional law are authoritative.
==
Chuckles. See Robert Bork’s critique of Tribe and Stanley Brubaker. There is no principled method at work there.
==
Pbinca –
Article III says federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. The Good Behaviour Clause has been interpreted since the founding of the nation to mean a lifetime appointment. Therefore, I don’t see how term limits can be enforced upon Scotus justices absent a constitutional amendment. If you know of a way, please explain.
Here’s are a few of Whitehouse’s side’s policy preferences:
Pack the Supreme Court
Defund the police
Raise taxes
No cash bail
Open borders
Men in women’s sports and private spaces
Sexually mutilate children
Drag queens story time for kindergarteners
Suppress energy production
Shut down energy pipelines
Prevent exporting liquified natural gas to paying customers
Cultural Marxism in schools
Side with terrorists
Label as domestic terrorists concerned moms at school board meetings
Woke military
Enable the Ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions
Endless lawfare against political opponents
Repeatedly slander half of the American electorate
Oppose the reduction of murders through National Guard deployment
Celebrate the murder of a political commentator they disagree with
Celebrate the murder of a health care executive
Excuse moms who strangle their kids
Ministry of propaganda
Embed federal agents in social media companies to direct censorship
Lincoln pursued these objectives 166 years ago. The Second American Revolution should have taken place then, rather than the Civil War. The entire undertaking should have culminated in Lincoln’s proposed colonization policy. Today, America has strayed so far from its constitutional foundations and lost so much of its once-discernible national culture that a return to a genuine America—grounded in individual freedom, constitutional government, and self-reliance—seems all but impossible.
Oldman–
Great list. It should be repeated in multiple venues. Too many people forget just how evil these people are.
New York, by the way, is replacing ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with ‘gestating parent’ and non-gestating parent.’
It is difficult to keep up with how insane the Democrats are becoming.
What is your basis for saying that Whitehouse holds all these positions?
Democrats are competing in a race to the bottom.
And the winner gets…what? An Obama/Nobel Peace Prize for furthering the destruction of civilization!
It’s the “Obama Coup D’état in America” that should have been precluded when Vattel posited that Obama could never be a “natural born citizen.”
What a great way to motivate Republicans to vote.
One man, one vote “democrazy” was doomed from the outset.
The Greeks severely restricted the vote for sound and rational reasons.
Leaders gotta lead; followers gotta follow.
They are sins to covet, bear false witness, and steal.
The left has lost it, if they ever had it. They cannot be reasoned into questioning their beliefs.
How about this: If Iran was in control of a thermonuclear bomb at this very moment, would that be okay?
There are forces behind the scenes that are racing to make that happen. North Korea, China, Russia, rogue radicals, by sheiks and Kings wearing fancy gold nose rings, plan America’s future from Amsterdam and Paris known only to deeply buried Western spies and Trump.
Pretend that isn’t true.
IRAN WOULD NEVER NUKE US. THEY LOVE US.
Had the Supreme Court not acted as a corrupt second legislative branch, had it not usurped and exercised the power of the legislative branch, once-free Americans would not have been saddled with Social Security and Medicare, which now account for 38% of federal spending.
Democrats strongly support Social Security and Medicare and the Supreme Court held in Helvering v Davis (1937) that Social Security is constitutional.
When the Social Security Act passed in 1935, the ratio of those voting for to the sum of those voting against and those not voting was 5.8 to 1. It won a 2 to 1 majority in the (much reduced) Republican caucus. It’s a reasonable wager the Court decision was not made on the merits, but to avoid standing in the way of a political consensus.
==
The Roosevelt Administration could have and should have sought out a prophylactic constitutional amendment in conjunction with passing the statute. They could have gotten it ratified in short order.
==
The program has in the intervening years required some structural adjustments. Congress won’t fix it and favors half-measures when they’re not ignoring the issues.
This nation survived a civil war. It survived two world wars. It survived students being gunned down on a campus because a Governor wanted to send more of them to kill children in Vietnam. It survived the assassinations of multiple Presidents.
When one uses the term “destroy” in this context it clearly means to inconvenience the oligarchs who control the vast majority of the wealth of this nation. Oligarchs who have cheaply bought control of the judicial system for baubles and momentary distractions.
Will it be reshaped? Perhaps. But it should not be in the form of taking Federal property and handing it over to billionaires to do with the United States what they please.
Secession was and is fully constitutional. Lincoln’s insane Civil War was unconstitutional and must have never happened. If there is one thing the Supreme Court does NOT support, it is the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court deliberately confuses “interpretation” with “corruption.”
The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court. Judicial means to “judge” or ensure that actions comport with law.
Judge does not mean to modify or amend by “interpretation.”
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Lincoln saw it plainly: If secession were always an option, what government would last through a single crisis? People must be forced to resolve conflict peacefully and emerge cohesive, rather than just splinter into separate entities. The Confederacy, if allowed to leave freely, would’ve taken the same trajectory as Brexit — which the majority of Brits now view with regret in hindsight, especially now that Brussels has backed down from its mass-immigration social experiment with EC member states.
If everyone in a conflict just takes their football and starts their own league, there’s no value put on unity and strength in numbers. While I agree that the SC has way-overstepped its authority in many cases, the argument that “secession is part of the Constitution” is the naive speculation of an adolescent who hasn’t lived long enough to understand committed relationships.
I don’t suppose you just recommended ignoring the law and seizing power. That is what Abraham “The Tyrant” Lincoln did.
Multiple states claimed the right to resume their sovereignty–were their happiness to dissipate–in their constitutional ratification documents.
The CSA would have left, failed, and reunited in good time; Europe was moving on from American cotton.
Reprehensible slavery was on its way out at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 in the minds of most.
Lincoln’s “colonization”–“Where there’s a will, there’s a way–would have concluded it all and cleaned up the mess in one nice tidy bundle.
LDS ANON!
well said PBINCA
Sumter. They bombed it. What to do?
Withdraw your illicit forces from a sovereign foreign nation, aka, obey the law.
Exactly. They had no right to bomb a sovereign nation. What did they expect? Open arms welcoming them like wok?
The Supreme Court in Texas v White (1869) held there is no constitutional right for a state to secede so you may want to read and consider the opinion.
Turley Writes:
“Moreover, if Trump is not legally responsible for the riot, he is not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop”.
…………………………
Turley wrote the above in his 1/6/22 column, the first anniversary of the riots. If one follows the links from today’s column, that column comes up.
In that first anniversary column, Turley freely admits that Trump encouraged all the ‘protesters to march on the Capitol; assuring that he would march with them.
Then Turley notes that Trump didn’t actually go to the Capitol, but went back to the White House instead (to watch the riots on Fox News).
Turley goes on to note that during the height of the riots, Ivanka Trump beseeched her father to make an announcement calling for an end to the violence.
Nevertheless Turley observes that since Trump didn’t actually tell the protesters to riot, “he was not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop”.
Does Turley sound like a constitutional scholar defending a great president?? Or does Turley sound like a defense attorney splitting legal hairs on behalf of a crime boss?
^ Chinese propaganda slop ^
The latter. In his Ellipse “Stop the Steal” Rally (the theme of which was stopping Congress from Certifying Biden as thr next President — it’s in the name they chose foe the event — Trump, Giuliani and Eastman whipped up the crowd to expect Mike Pence to mickey the Proceeding, and end up declaring Trump the winner of the Electoral College. Trump implored the crowd to go to the Capitol to “witness something historical”.
At 2:24 local time, when it became painfully clear to Trump that Pence was not “playing on his team”, he tweeted to the throngs “Mike Pence has betrayed us”. This is when exactly the mood of the crowd turned violent — with the most committed StealStoppers to attempt to shut down Congress and stop the Joint Session from annointing Biden.
Trump didn’t directly order the violence.
He primed the crowd in the morning with an false expectation that the Biden ascension could be stopped by lawyerly game-playing. Then, when that narrative was collapsing on live TV inside the chamber, Trump grew irate and accused the V.P. of treason. That tweet lit the fire.
Thanks for the fantasy.
DAILY TDS ANON
” Trump encouraged all the protesters to march on the Capitol; assuring that he would march with them.”
Correct.
“Trump didn’t actually go to the Capitol”
Correct – the secret service refused to allow him to.
“but went back to the White House instead”
And watchedf the protests – among many other things.
“Ivanka Trump beseeched her father to make an announcement”
She did, and he did.
“Trump didn’t tell the protesters to riot,”
Correwct – the protests were peaceful until the CP lobbed a tear gas grendade into their own, and then for good measure lobbed one into a peaceful crowd.
Chaos ensued as protestors fled the Tear Gas in all directions – one of which pushed them into the CP lines where two groups both pissed off by teargas engaged in a meley.
This is all in video that was not made public until after Republicans took over the house.
“he was not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop”.
Correct, and not relevant.
Trump had days before authorized the NG to assist at the Capital – that has been confirmed under oath in multiple hearings and in myriads of email from the time and written documents.
The Ssst. Sec Def was waiting for a call from the house sargent of Arms.
Gen Walker and the DC NG were waiting on a bus at the DC Armory for that call.
The House Sarget at arms – Captain Sund had been Begging Pelosi for days to allow him to ask for the NG.
Meanwhile Pelosi was busy calling the Gov. of VA and the Gov of Md asking for their NG.
The DC gaurd can not enter the capital grounds without the permission of congress – that comes through the house sargent of Arms who answers to the Speaker of the House Pelosi.
Trump had DAYS BEFORE ordered everything he was constitutionally able to do – he told. Sec Def, Miley and two others in the Oval to had the DC NG prepared to go to the capital the moment the Speaker at Arms requested them.
Trump ordered the Guard to be available – because he is not a moron. He fully expected that Pelosi would attempt to provoke violence and he wanted the NG between the protestors and the CP.
Conversely Pelosi refused to request the DC Guard because she beleived the DC NG had been deliberately seeded with Trump supporters and would engage in a Coup.
Pelosi sought assistance from the VA and MD guard because Trump had less control over their membership.
But Just like the DC guard can not enter the capital area without permission from Congress – specifically the speaker of the house. The VA and MD guards can not leave their state without the permission of the president.
So the MD and VA governors politely told Pelosi they could not do as she asked.
Finally at about 2:30 Pelosi relented and had someone else – NOT Sund who she was setting up as the fall guy, Cat the Asst. Sec. Def, who ordered Miley and JCS to deploy the guard. This proceded rapidly down the chain of command until it hit One of the idiots Hegseth is trying to purge who wasted over an hour trying to put together and Op Plan before directing Walker to go to the capital – when it was clear to his superiors that the NG was not the capital he was circumvented and Walker was deployed to the capital – at which time it was too late as all the conflict was over.
There is nothing the military does better than document orders. Orders are the difference between officers and soldiers committing crimes and doing their job – the military Absolutely documents their orders.
All of this came forward in MULTIPLE under oath inquires – including testimonay and the Written orders that were issued at each step of the proces – from the moment several days before Trump directed 4 people at the top of the military to make sure that the DC NG was available and authorized to go the moment Pelosi requested them.
Trump initiated this – not the CP not Pelosi.
AGAIN Trump wanted the DC NG at the Capital.
Pelosi did not.
This is all unbeleiveably well documented
But god forbid the left should allow the facts to get in the way of a political narative.
And wok pushed your version of events, the correct, well-documented facts how everything unfolded!
Wok press is treasonous. You won’t find it citing the facts, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If it’s well documented as you say, then please provide the documentation so we can evaluate it.
Bombshell transcripts: Trump urged use of troops to protect Capitol on Jan. 6 , but was rebuffed
https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/bombshell-transcripts-trump-urged-use-troops-protect-capitol-jan-6-was?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Key House chairman to ask Congress to repudiate Democrats’ J6 findings in face of new evidence
https://justthenews.com/government/diplomacy/sunkey-house-chairman-ask-congress-repudiate-democrats-j6-findings-face-new
You’re a big girl?
Eons ago, when Erwin Chemerinsky was still at USC, he taught a Bar Review course in July. He was part of the Barbri Bar Review and taught the Con Law sessions. He was amazing, so smart and intelligent, and knew Con Law inside out. He has a photograpic memory, HE NEVER EVER USED NOTES OR AN OUTLINE IN HIS LECTURES! He did the entire review by MEMORY alone. Never seen any Professor with such an amazing memory and recall. He also was NOT a radical left, tree hugging commie back then. He had normal non radical views. He was left leaning/wing, but not radicalized like he is now. I really looked up to and admired him. He was the BEST professor Barbri had, and pretty much every one they had was a superstar in their concentration. Sad to see the BS he is spewing out today. Never in my life could I have seen this coming from him 😿😿😿
That was interesting. I knew none of that.
I used to listen to his Sum & Substance Conlaw lectures. Other than his really annoying cadence, I also thought he was brilliant – and balanced. I’ve been shocked to see the transformation.
Chemerinsky was practically canonized by my law school. He could say or do no wrong. It was my school’s slavish devotion to the shrine of Chemerinsky which drove me to research his writings and pronouncements and recognize that my school was a left-wing haven.
I understand Lawrence Tribe used to be a respected con law professor too, and even has a treatise. Now he has gone completely LU (loony-unhinged). As far as respected liberal con law professors go, there is one glimmer of hope: Dershowitz. Whatever his sins in his private life vis-a-vis his wife, he sees with moral clarity what’s happening to the Democrat party and has now become a “reluctant Republican” (his words). He even has a book out about it, called Why I Quit the Dems (and so should you).
See critiques of Tribe’s work published by Stanley Brubaker in 1989. He’s long been a disagreeable influence on public discussion.
There is something behind the political peeps of the Whitehouses,Tribes and Carvilles, and that something is personal responsibility. What is their commitment to the idea? If l read Ike Eisenhower’s letter written just after he sent the troops off to D Day, it says if it works the credit is all theirs. If it fails, the failure is all mine. The peeps say if this works the credit is all mine. If it fails, it’s all yours.
Here’s a thesis: everything called a ‘landmark decision’ is an unjustified intrusion into legislative discretion or a can of worms the appellate judges in question will make a hash of down the road.
The rage of the Democratic Party is generated by the notion that pubic institutions are their property and any such institution occupied by anyone else has been stolen. Also, that public discourse is their property and that it’s their prerogative to prevail in every conflict. This attitude is not compatible with a stable constitutional order.
==
From 1937 to 2018 they expected the appellate courts to impose their preferences when legislatures wouldn’t, if not this year then ten years down the road. This court won’t do that and appellate courts in general have been frustrating their project of mass confiscation of privately owned firearms. Hence the rage.
A packed SCOTUS would look like ‘The View’
What would a packed court of The View look like?
Chief of View Bar – Brian Teta
Solicitor of View Bar – Sarah de la O
Associates of View Bar:
Joy Behar
Barbara Walters
Meredith Vieira
Star Jones
Debbie Matenopoulos
Lisa Ling
Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Rosie O’Donnell
Whoopi Goldberg
Sherri Shepherd
Jenny McCarthy
Nicolle Wallace
Rosie Perez
Raven-Symoné
Michelle Collins
Candace Cameron Bure
Paula Faris
Jedediah Bila
Sara Haines
Sunny Hostin
Meghan McCain
Abby Huntsman
Ana Navarro
Alyssa Farah Griffin
Anyway, You get the idea where this is heading …
Ref.: (see righthand side column)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_View
JT, what is your position on a Supreme Court term limit reform package — a bipartisan reform from Congress?
It would lock in the Court to 9 seats, while giving each 4-year President at least one appointment, and 8-year President two. Unfinished terms (by retirement, death, resignation or impeachment) would be filled temporarily by Presidential appointment, until that SC court seat’s term ended.
During transition to this system, the oldest Justice would be retired to make way for the next scheduled-term appointment. Terms would run 16 years, and begin on the Oct 1st of each Presidential Inauguration year. If confirmation were delayed, the retiring Justice would remain pending confirmation of the replacement. The incoming Justice’s term would not be shifted by confirmation delay.
It seems the 2 parties could agree on this reform, since it evens out the influence of each elected President on the Court’s makeup — and removes the threat of court packing. Isn’t that a point of agreement?
The tone of today’s piece is speculative grievance collection. Why not propose a solution that precludes court packing in perpetuity?
They can pack a 13 member court as well as a 9 member court. .. it’s the packing what does it.
What ‘bipartisan’ reform package from congress do you refer? I think terms limits/age limits are absolutely necessary, both for SCOTUS and congress. Many of these big wig party power-brokers should be in a nursing home.
In any case, would prefer any SCOTUS reform to be ‘non-partisan’. .. if such a thing is possible.
*Turley seems stuck on #9 .. . we may be the oldest Democracy in the world, but no longer think we are the most successful or stable!
H.R.1074 It mostly differs by there being an 18-year term, and each 4-year President gets to make 2 appointments 2 years apart. Only the 9 Justices with the least seniority get to decide cases — any longer-serving Justices are not stripped of their title, just their voting power and writing power over cases. The 9-least-senior Justices criteria solve the problem of a “vacancy”.
I believe the bill is written this way to avoid a Constitutional challenge based on Article III.
It’s a sad commentary on Res Ipsa Loquitor that neither the blog captain (JT) nor enough commenters use this forum to debate how to resolve the conflict over Supreme Court appointments and stacking the court. Rather, the opportunity for self-expression is used for whinging and other non-productive echo-chamber chatter.
You might think the status quo you like will hold. No, it’s going to be gamed for the Dem’s advantage unless a compromise can be struck on Court Reform.
@Anonymous–
pbinca, below, has put forth a very reasonable compromise that I heartily endorse. Sadly, however, for reasons that I put forth in my reply to pbinca, I doubt that his compromise will ever be accepted by both sides.
But I could be wrong, of course: Hope springs eternal.
In past columns Turley has advocated for a court expansion plan that would expand the court gradually to limit the prospect of the court being packed all at once for partisan purposes. So, he has dealt in solutions. He just doesn’t mention it every time he writes about the court, although I do think he could make mention of it more often.
First we are a constitutionsl republic not a democracy. Second even if we were a democracy which one is more stable and effective?
False choice. A blend of the two is best combining stability, gradual evolution, and decisions based on public consensus that are not regrettable in hindsight.
@pbinca–
This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable compromise, and it is for that very reason that the Democrats will never accept it.
If Professor Turley’s quote from Eric Holder is accurate–I don’t have time to “fact-check”– it, the Democrats’ goal is sheer, unadulterated POWER, with the ultimate objective of permanently guaranteeing that the Republicans never re-assume power again:
And given that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, I think that Orwell foresees in his book, 1984, where that Democratic power will lead:
While the Democrats insistently call the Republicans “fascists” (without really understanding what the word means), it is they who are the closet tyrants, not-so-secretly lusting for total control over what we, the hoi polloi, can think, say or do: They are bloody, drooling, wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
Of course, I do not claim that all Democrats think this way; the garden variety Democrats at the state and local levels seem to me to be decent people, just not entirely aware of the thinking of those Democrats who inhabit the Federal government. (They are, after all, busy, working people who have more important problems to address than what’s happening at the Federal level.) But certainly, those Democrats at the Federal level mostly seem to fit that power-hungry mould.
And also, of course, because I have been sharply critical of many Democrats in this comment, many of you readers out there will be convinced that I am a frothing-at-the-mouth MAGA devotée; but nothing could be further from the truth. Once the Republican Party became the cult of Trump, I became a political Independent. Yes, I still lean right, but at my local level I find myself voting for more and more Democrats, as the local Republican Party puts up more and more frothing-at-the-mouth MAGA candidates.
Enough said.
pbinca, it’s an interesting scheme. What problem is it designed to fix?
The basic concept is this – the controlling members of the Federalist Society want to control who is on the Supreme Court so they can control the United States. Any alternative, whether packing or a rational recirculation, undermines that goal and won’t be accepted.
Anon, I know it’s always good to have a bogeyman, but FedSoc is an interest group that lobbies for a particular type of judge on the Court —- a lot like the ABA or ACLU etc. Finding a convenient enemy doesn’t really address the issue.
Is there anyone at all on the left willing to stand up? Anyone at all? And we are supposed to believe the entire sitting party aren’t fascists hell bent on power when this comes out multiple times a week, now? These people are crazy.
For only the fourth time in my life, I voted a straight red ticket yesterday. I can’t in good conscience vote for dems again. They need to fracture if any sanity remains; it does not appear to be so.
Have you listened to Rahm Emmanuel’s interviews?