Jonathan Turley, one of the last honest and principled liberals in the public arena, suggests that the Democrats' threats to bully the justices are backfiring and that the Court is sending strong warning signals to them. In a post to his own website yesterday, the George Washington University law professor wrote: Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the Court is not so rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest. He believes that a series of unanimous court decisions as the current term ends "seem to be sending a message that the Court is not so rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest." This is an extraordinary litany of unanimous decisions and could in part reflect an implied message from the justices that this is a court that is not nearly as rigid and divided as suggested by Democratic members and activists Turley does not say so, but there may be an implied threat by some of the liberal justices to vote with the conservatives if the Dems actually succeed in packing the court. … https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/dems_courtpacking_threats_may_be_backfiring.html Court packing is and always has been a terrible idea. It would destroy the legitimacy and independence of the federal judiciary. It would make the court a vassal to the executive and the legislative branches when ever one party had control of both of the other branches.
These threats should backfire. This was a stupid idea when Roosevelt suggested it and it’s just as dumb now. If Dems add four now then when there’s a GOP President they add 8 more to restore the balance before the first packing effort 6-3 to 6-7 to 14-7. We would not stop at two to regain the majority but would restore the present ratio instead then if they do this now.
I can't think of a more clear and effective signal to court packing (D)s that all 9 SCOTUS justices oppose court expansion. I think the key, but most subtle implication is that the 9 current jurists are prepared to marginalize the 4 new jurists the (D)s propose adding.
I wonder if Dems will back off or up the ante by adding 10 instead? Hopefully the public response to such a more blatant power grab will dissuade them. I can also see why some progressives were trying to pressure Breyer into retiring now instead of 2023.
No one need worry about court packing, nuttin' but campaign season pillow talk to seduce the voters....like 99.999999% of the crappola spouted by both parties EVERY cycle.
I don't think so. The entirety of the democratic socialist agenda depends on (D)s politicizing the SCOTUS. HB 1 ... Pelosi's number 1 priority, strips states of their rights to regulate their elections. Pelosi doesn't need, or even want the SCOTUS to review whether that's constitutional ... she only wants, and needs the majority to decline to review states challenges on constitutional grounds. (D)s target MTRs in the House, filibusters in the Senate, and propose court packing simultaneously? Those are big red flags, and clear indications that 1 party authoritarianism is the intended goal.
I'm NOT for packing the court but if the threat of doing so results in the court deciding cases based on how the law should be interpreted and not their ideology then it's a win.
