Multiple times in the past year, Democrats have threatened to change the composition of the Supreme Court because Republicans confirmed Constitution-loving justices. It isn’t a secret that Democrats prefer outcome-based justices. During John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, Sen. Durbin asked a question about what assurances the American people would have that Roberts would rule in the little guy’s favor. Roberts replied, saying that he’d guarantee that he’d rule in the little guy’s favor every time the Constitution was on the little guy’s side.

The Constitution isn’t meant to give “the little guy” an advantage. That’s what legislatures are for. In this post, I wrote about a brief that the Democrat senators Whitehouse, Rosenthal, Hirono and Durbin sent to the Supreme Court. In that brief, they wrote “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

This was clearly a threat from the Democrats to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices if Democrats didn’t get the outcome they wanted on a gun control lawsuit. Democrats haven’t been bashful about their desire to pack the courts. This article highlights the Democrats’ politicization of the Supreme Court:

Democratic candidates are increasingly advocating “court packing,” that is, upping the number of Supreme Court justices to balance the bench — or ensure a liberal majority. The idea is unlikely to succeed for historical and practical reasons but its resonance on the campaign trail reflects Democrats’ new emphasis on the judiciary during the Trump era.

While the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, the number of members of the Supreme Court is dictated by the Legislative Branch. In other words, a simple majority of Democrats in the House, a simple majority of Democrats in the Senate and a signature of a Democrat president could pack the Supreme Court for a generation or more.

It’s time to take that matter out of the hands of partisans. It’s time to pass a constitutional amendment that forever establishes a 9-member Supreme Court. That’s what we have now. The Court works just fine. Let’s see how many Democrats vote against such an amendment. I triple-dog dare Democrats to admit that they favor the full politicization of the Supreme Court. This is a campaign ad from Elizabeth Warren’s senate campaign:

There’s no way she wouldn’t pack the courts to tip the Supreme Court in the Democrats’ favor.

3 Responses to “Bulletproofing the Supreme Court”

  • Chad Q says:

    Liberals/progressives/socialists/communists, or whatever the democrat party is calling themselves these days can’t win elections with policy so they need the courts to fight their battles. They’d better be care what they wish for because it could backfire on them just like the nuclear option did in the senate.

  • eric z says:

    Roosevelt’s proposed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 did what was needed even though it failed to pass, and the approach is a template for today. What we need is Bernie doing fireside chats rather than Orange Man tweeting. Interestingly back then it was a Justice Roberts who did not need a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing.

    And you know, but for Ukraine Joe, Clarence Thomas likely would not be on the Court to be part of the problem.

    Anita Hill got screwed, Ukraine Joe being committee chair then, and he felt stopping Bork was enough so he could appease by ultimately rubber-stamping John Danforth’s choice. It was shameful, there were three other women who had allegations against Thomas, and Ukraine Joe declined to call them, or even one of them. History has lessons if people have memories.

  • Gary Gross says:

    FDR’s economic policies sucked in terms of growing the economy. What got the economy started was WWII, not Roosevelt’s policies. Roosevelt was a great president in that he created Social Security when we needed it & he was a great war president but in terms of economic policies, he sucked.

    If it wasn’t for Ted Kennedy & Joe Biden, Clarence Thomas would’ve gotten approved by a much bigger margin. I watched his confirmation hearings. Anita Hill’s testimony was total BS. If he harassed Hill, why did she follow him wherever he went in government? I trust Hill more than I’d trust Avenatti but that isn’t saying much.

    If history has taught us anything, it’s that skirt-chasing politicians keep doing what they’ve gotten away with. Ted Kennedy & Bill Clinton didn’t stop chasing skirts. Clarence Thomas never did. So much for this BS.

Leave a Reply