NY Times Is Hot To Pack The Supreme Court

Hardcore Leftist Jamelle Bouie is super excited about this, but, only if a Democrat wins the White House

To Balance the Scales of Justice, Don’t Be Afraid to Pack the Court

President Trump bragged on Twitter recently about his success filling up the federal judiciary. “I want to congratulate” Senate majority leader “Mitch McConnell and all Republicans,” Trump wrote: “Today I signed the 160th Federal Judge to the Bench. Within a short period of time we will be at over 200 Federal Judges, including many in the Appellate Courts & two great new U.S. Supreme Court Justices!”

This is just a slight exaggeration. After 32 months in office, Trump has made 209 nominations to the federal judiciary, with 152 judges confirmed by the Senate, including two Supreme Court justices. That’s nearly half the total confirmed during President Barack Obama’s eight years in office.

(lots of whining)

Democrats are left in an unenviable position. Should they win a federal “trifecta” — the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives — they’ll still have to deal with a Trump-branded judiciary. It’s entirely possible that a future Democratic agenda would be circumscribed and unraveled by a Supreme Court whose slim conservative majority owes itself to minority government and constitutional hardball.

So what should Democrats do? They should play hardball back. Congress, according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, decides the number of judges. It’s been 150 years since it changed the size of the Supreme Court. I think it’s time to revisit the issue. Should Democrats win that trifecta, they should expand and yes, pack, the Supreme Court. Add two additional seats to account for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations. Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize Trump and McConnell’s attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order.

Modern (whiny-assed) Socialists like Bouie should be careful what they wish for, lest Trump packs the Court himself.

The reasoning underpinning this proposal isn’t just about the future; it’s about the past. We have had two rounds of minority government in under two decades — two occasions where executive power went to the popular-vote loser. Rather than moderate their aims and ambitions, both presidents have empowered ideologues and aggressively spread their influence. We are due for a course correction.

Told you he was whiny-assed. And utterly illiterate about our Constitutional Republic. But, ready for a really hot take?

The goal isn’t to make the courts a vehicle for progressive policy, (yes it is) but to make sure elected majorities can govern — to keep the United States a democratic republic and not a judge-ocracy. Yes, there are genuine constitutional disputes, questions about individual rights and the scope of federal power. At the same time, there are broad readings of the Constitution — ones that give our elected officials the necessary power to act and to solve problems — and narrow readings, which handcuff and restrict the range of our government.

Do I need to mention that our system is set up to protect the minority from the mob rule of the majority? And that these rules are baked into our founding documents? Jamelle also seems unhappy that those rules restrain Governmental power.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “NY Times Is Hot To Pack The Supreme Court”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Moscow Mitch (or is it Mitch the Grifter?) should have thought of this before the Gorsuch stunt.

  2. Professor Hale says:

    At least he admits that the point of packing the courts is to change the outcomes of future cases, not to increase efficiency, reduce judicial backlog, or improve justice.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6040 access attempts in the last 7 days.