Supreme Court

Don't Pack the Courts

Joe Biden shouldn't repeat FDR's big mistake.


On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt made what would prove to be one of the biggest blunders of his political career. "The personnel of the Federal Judiciary is insufficient to meet the business before them," Roosevelt announced in a special message to Congress. His plan to fix the alleged problem: Pack the courts. "A constant and systematic addition of younger blood will vitalize the courts," FDR declared, "and better equip them to recognize and apply the essential concepts of justice in the light of the needs and the facts of an ever-changing world."

Under the court-packing legislation that Roosevelt sent to Congress, the president would get to appoint one new federal judge for every sitting federal judge that had served at least 10 years on the bench and had failed to retire or resign within six months of reaching the age of 70. In practical terms, the bill would empower Roosevelt to completely reshape the federal judiciary, letting him name up to 44 brand new federal judges and, most important, up to six new Supreme Court justices, bringing the total in that body as high as 15.

The odds of success certainly seemed to be in the president's favor. Not only did Roosevelt's party control both houses of Congress at the time but it did so by an absolutely lopsided legislative majority. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats' advantage was a staggering 4–1. And "the president had so overwhelming a majority in the upper house," the historian William E. Leuchtenburg noted of the Senate, "that several Democrats could find seats only across the aisle in the Republican section."

But then everything started to go wrong. Opposition to the plan rapidly mounted. What is more, the bill's most effective adversaries turned out to be members of Roosevelt's own party, such as the legendary progressive jurist Louis Brandeis, who deftly maneuvered behind the scenes to ensure the bill's ultimate defeat. Like so many others at the time, Brandeis was frankly aghast at FDR's blatant power grab. "Tell your president," Brandeis coldly informed Roosevelt adviser Tom Corcoran after learning of the plan, "he has made a great mistake."

Despite its many perceived advantages—a popular president recently reelected, a friendly Congress full of ostensible allies—the court-packing plan would be dead and buried in less than six months, unceremoniously entombed within the confines of the Senate Judiciary Committee, from which it would never emerge.

Eight decades later, a growing number of Democrats are ready to try again. "Should Democrats win" control of both Congress and the White House, declared New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie in 2019, "they should expand and yes, pack, the Supreme Court….Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize [President Donald] Trump and [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell's attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order."

Joe Biden's election to the White House has brought that scenario one step closer. At the time of this writing, the Democrats have a grip on the House of Representatives, while the future of the Senate remains to be decided by a pair of special elections that will be held in Georgia in January. Should the Democrats actually succeed in winning control of the upper chamber at some point in the near future, the arrival of a new court-packing scheme on Capitol Hill is within the realm of possibility.

Historians have long been fascinated by the spectacular failure of FDR's judicial gambit. Given the unruly state of American politics today, the story of how and why his court-packing bill met its demise may hold some potent lessons for the present as well.

'The Judicial Power'

According to Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, "the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The document says nothing about the number of judges needed to fill the bench.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 took care of that, setting the size of the first Supreme Court at six. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives," the law read, "that the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum."

That figure would fluctuate in the years ahead, dropping down to five justices at one point and then climbing to seven at another. The high-water mark came in 1863, when the Supreme Court briefly had 10 justices as a result of Congress expanding the federal bench to include the new U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The Judiciary Act of 1869 would later fix the number of justices at nine, where it has remained ever since.

Although the idea of tinkering with the size of the Supreme Court for the express purpose of filling it with simpatico jurists is most closely associated with Franklin Roosevelt, the idea was not original to him. His famous older cousin had floated the concept three decades earlier.

In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt launched a third-party run for the White House under the Progressive Party banner. Attacks on the "reactionary" Supreme Court played a notable part in his campaign.

The Rough Rider was particularly incensed by decisions such as Lochner v. New York (1905), in which the Supreme Court struck down a state economic regulation for interfering with the constitutional right to economic liberty. "If a majority of the people, after due deliberation, decide to champion such social and economic reforms as those we champion," T.R. would say, "they have the right to see them enacted into law and become a part of our settled government policy." Progressive voters and lawmakers, he maintained, "cannot surrender the right of ultimate control to a judge."

In order to combat Lochner and similar rulings, he declared, "it will have to be made much easier than it now is to get rid, not merely of a bad judge, but of a judge who, however virtuous, has grown out of touch with social needs and facts that he is unfit longer to render good service on the bench."

Cousin Franklin took that notion and ran with it.

'Extraordinary Conditions'

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to discover the cause of Franklin Roosevelt's beef with the Supreme Court. The simple fact is that FDR was sore about losing a bunch of big cases. Perhaps his most stinging defeat came on May 27, 1935—"Black Monday," as despondent New Dealers came to call it—when Roosevelt lost three major cases in the course of a single morning, each one decided against him by a vote of 9–0. The most significant of the three was Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, which invalidated the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933, the legislative centerpiece of FDR's New Deal agenda.

The Schechter case asked whether the NIRA represented an illegal delegation of lawmaking authority by Congress to the executive. Given the massive number of executive orders issued by FDR under the sweeping law, it seemed as if the president was becoming a lawmaking power unto himself.

Also at issue in Schechter was whether the NIRA, which regulated economic activity down to the most minute local level, amounted to an illegitimate exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The Schechter brothers, who operated a kosher slaughterhouse in Brooklyn, New York, sparked the case by running afoul of New Deal regulators by committing such supposed infractions as "destructive price cutting" and allowing customers to make "selections of individual chickens taken from particular coops and half-coops." Not exactly "commerce…among the several states."

The Supreme Court ruled against the New Dealers on both counts. "Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power," declared the unanimous opinion of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. That phrase was widely understood as a direct rebuke of Roosevelt himself. The NIRA must be struck down in its entirety, the chief justice wrote, or else "there would be virtually no limit to the federal power, and, for all practical purposes, we should have a completely centralized government."

FDR was furious. "The country was in the horse-and-buggy age when that clause was written," he complained to the press, referring to the provision giving federal lawmakers the power to regulate commerce that crosses state lines. As far as he was concerned, the country needed a Supreme Court that would "view the interstate commerce clause in the light of present-day civilization."

A reporter then asked the president about his next move against the Court. "We haven't got to that yet," Roosevelt replied. Two years later, having been securely reelected to a second term, he would seek his revenge via the court-packing plan.

'Emphatically Rejected'

Sen. Burton K. Wheeler (D–Mont.) was nobody's idea of a New Deal foe. In 1924, Wheeler was the Progressive Party's vice-presidential candidate, serving as running mate to the famous Wisconsin leftist Robert M. La Follette. Later, as chairman of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee, Wheeler would play a central role in the 1935 passage of FDR's bill to regulate utility holding companies. Wheeler even had a personal stake in wanting to see New Deal legislation prevail in federal court. When the Supreme Court in 1936 struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 in United States v. Butler, Wheeler's son-in-law, an economist at the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, was tossed out of work.

Yet none of that prevented Wheeler from launching an all-out attack on FDR's court-packing plan. "It is an easy step from the control of a subservient Congress and the control of the Supreme Court to a modern democracy of a Hitler or a Mussolini," Wheeler fumed in a letter to the socialist leader Norman Thomas. Speaking to a national radio audience less than two weeks after FDR forwarded his judiciary bill to Congress, Wheeler went nuclear: "Every despot has usurped the power of the legislative and judicial branches in the name of the necessity for haste to promote the general welfare of the masses—and then proceeded to reduce them to servitude."

As Wheeler led the congressional fight against court packing, he acquired a powerful progressive ally in another branch of government. According to biographer Melvin Urofsky, FDR's "scheme particularly alienated eighty-year-old Louis Brandeis, by then an icon of the liberals and considered by many of them the original New Dealer." Brandeis, a sitting Supreme Court justice, would marshal opposition to the court-packing plan from inside the Court itself.

Another nail in the coffin was driven home by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which issued a damning adverse report on the bill in June 1937. The court-packing plan "is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected," the report stated, "that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America." Seven of the 10 senators who signed that document were members of the Democratic Party. The killing of the bill was a thoroughly bipartisan affair.

Ironically, Roosevelt could have avoided the whole embarrassing ordeal if he had just kept his cool and waited things out. By the time of his death in 1945—during his fourth term in office—FDR had appointed eight new justices to the Supreme Court. In the end, he got to leave his mark on the Court without any unsavory meddling with its size.

'I Beat the Socialist'

Is there a Brandeis or a Wheeler among today's Democrats—a figure willing to lead the fight against court packing from inside the liberal coalition?

The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg might have been happy to play the role. It "was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court," she told National Public Radio in 2019, and it would be a bad idea now. "If anything would make the Court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'"

Maybe Joe Biden will consider playing the part. During his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden took pains to distance himself from the extreme left wing of his party. "I beat the socialist," Biden bragged of defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) in the primaries. "That's how I got elected. That's how I got the nomination."

Biden also made certain efforts to distance himself from the growing Democratic calls for court packing. "If elected," Biden told 60 Minutes, "I'll put together a national…bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars. Democrats, Republicans. Liberal, conservative. And I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system, because it's getting out of whack." Such a commission, Biden stressed, is "not about court packing."

Of course, Biden also conceded that the composition of the courts is a "live ball" among the Democratic base. But he added that "the last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just another political football, whoever's got the most votes gets whatever they want."

Unlike Franklin Roosevelt, Biden has yet to see any of his signature presidential accomplishments go down in judicial flames. A few sharp losses at SCOTUS could push him into Roosevelt territory.

Or maybe not. After all, many presidents have lost at the Supreme Court since 1937, including Biden's old boss, Barack Obama. Yet none of them threw an FDR-sized temper tantrum and tried to rig the process for their own benefit. One hopes Biden will follow that historical precedent.

The justices of the Supreme Court may be appointed by the executive, but they answer to the Constitution. No president should ever again launch such a shameful attack on the independence of a co-equal branch of government.

NEXT: A New Report Casts Doubt on Both Fears and Hopes About the Consequences of Abolishing Qualified Immunity

Supreme Court Court Packing Biden Administration Judiciary Franklin Roosevelt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

196 responses to “Don't Pack the Courts

  1. One hopes Biden will follow that historical precedent.

    You wouldn’t have to rely on “hope” if Trump had been re-elected. See, as bad as Trump was, the alternative wasn’t somebody better, the alternative was a Democrat.

    1. You wouldn’t have to rely on “hope” if Trump hadn’t tanked the Georgia senate runoff election.

      1. This whole can of worms could have been avoided, had 2016 GOP primary voters had better sense! Character matters, people! Trump’s piss-poor character was already clear, at that time. Put up better candidates next time! See below for more details…
        WAAAAY good summary of Trumpian excesses found right here!!! (With supporting link).

        1. If only the GOP had acted more like the Democrats we could have elected Democrats!

          1. Suggestion: “JesseBahnFuhrer and the Trumpanzees” would be a LOT less frightening as a garage band, than as semi-naked, fur-adorned, horned-helmeted barbarians strutting, rutting, and rioting at the gates of civilized democracy, and peaceful transitions of power!

            1. Suggestion: STFU.
              Flagged, refresh.

              1. All in favor of officially recording the multiply-confirmed (established, verified) FACT that Sevo is on the rag, please say nothing, because we all, already know this!
                Any “nay”?
                No nay!
                Sevo is now duly noted to be on the rag, and hopefully we can adjourn this meeting without being so informed, yet AGAIN!

                1. Go back to your shit bucket. You are only an object of scorn and ridicule here. We don’t even read your drivel. We just attack you for coming here.

                  Which is still better than you deserve.

                  1. Q: What’s the difference between a good (genuinely funny) joke, and Sexless Stranger?

                    A: One is a shift of wit. The other is a wift of shit!

                    1. Man, the commenters here thrust it up all of your lumina. Geez how can you take all that without going nutso? Oh. Nevermind.

                    2. Since I started fre+lancing I’ve been bringing in (((($)))90 bucks/h… I sit at home and i am doing my work from my laptop. Th℮ best thing is that i get more time to spent with my family and with my kids and in the same time i can earn enough to support them…

                      You can do it too. Start here—— > > Home Profit System

                    3. That wasn’t even close to being clever. What a surprise.

                      Isn’t there some comment board based on around s scatalogical content? You can shitpost there.

                      While you eat your shit.

                1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Alk Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
                  COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

                  1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings ABD are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                    on this page…..READ MORE

          2. wellcome to the online job. I will earn more than 15,000 EUR for easy work online at home in my free time. I am a full-time student and just because I did this job for 3 hours, I got 18,269 EUR..xG8 from this job last month. Very good work and making money is great. Anyone can get this job and start making money just by following the instructions here… Detail Of Work

        2. “This whole can of worms could have been avoided, had 2016 GOP primary voters had better sense! Character matters, people! ”

          Two words: Bernie Sanders.

          1. If Jeb Bush (who I voted for in the primaries) couldn’t have beaten Sanders in the fall… If the masses of the voters are THAT socialist… Then we’re already screwed anyway!

            A Jeb Bush POTUS wouldn’t have declared trade wars on the whole world, thrown “illegal sub-human” babies in wire cages, and lost track of their parents, or taken us to the brink of handing democracy over to a wild mob of trumpanzees gone apeshit!

            1. JEB!!! Hahaha! What a fool you are.

            2. Is there any reason to think that Jeb Bush is any less of a Democrat-lite (and socialist-lite) than his father and brother?

          2. If character matters, we should have elected Gary Johnson in 2016.

            1. Amen! I voted for Gary Johnson! (In the fall, of course. Participating in Libertarian “primary” type activities is too much for lazy old-geezer me).

              It is DAMNED refreshing to see other real libertarians here!

              1. It’s “Awomen” you disgusting sexist fuck.

        3. Any Republican other than Trump would have lost to Hillary. So, you are implying that the Clinton’s character was superior to Trump’s. Sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.

      2. Lol. God democrats will ationalize anything to prove it wasn’t their fault. Trump didn’t cast a single vote in Ga

        1. Are you sure about that? He may have voted by mail for Joe Biden and then in the Senate race too!

      3. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week…UYTghj I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…….Home Profit System

      4. How about this moniker:
        Hope and Status Quo

    2. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months bnh and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…… Visit Here

    3. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother hcx was out of work for three months fbhy and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…… Visit Here

    4. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously $1500 Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over GBt The Internet … Check The Details HERE………… Visit Here

    5. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months bgm and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

    6. While I cannot guarantee what you might get offered if you’re successful with them, my research suggests around $30 USD per hour for those based in Asia/India, and around $30-40 USD per hour for those based in Europe and UK / US / Australia / New Zealand. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail…….INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    7. Noted BLM’er Ben Sasse: “The insurrection was not a protest gone awry or the work of a few bad apples. It is the blossoming of a rotten seed that took root in the Republican Party some time ago and has been nourished by treachery, poor political judgment, and cowardice!” TAP ON HERE USA JOB INFO

    8. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months fju and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

    9. Funny isn’t it, that Root never saw fit to discuss this threat until after the elections – not just POTUS but also the Georgia runoffs.

      Even if you liked Biden on everything else if you don’t like court packing then this might have been worth mentioning as a foreseeable consequence of the Georgia runoffs.

    10. While I cannot guarantee what you might get offered if you’re successful with them,RFEyui my research suggests around $30 USD per hour for those based in Asia/India, and around $30-40 USD per hour for those based in Europe and UK / US / Australia / New Zealand. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail……Home Profit System

    11. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life.QWEmka Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks……Visit……….Home Profit System

    12. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish…FGTeds It’s a flexible job but a good
      eaning opportunity……… Visit……….Home Profit System

  2. Although the D’s having 50 + 1 in the Senate, I’m not sure Biden has the votes, even before losing the Senate and likely the House before his first term is up.

    1. True. Manchin is already on record as a vote against expanding SCOTUS.

      1. Wrong. He will be on record once he actually votes against it. Has he?

        Otherwise he is just another random variable, and we can try to estimate his probability of voting against it. Relying on the words of a politician sounds like madness to me.

      2. He’s on record in favor of making DC and PR states. Once that’s done, they don’t need his vote on anything else.

        1. Yep, you hit the nail on the head.

        2. Good. I hate that POS.

  3. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

    1. test

      1. can still read the children. little tedious.

  4. Too many cooks spoil the soup! THAT is why we need 345 high-paid Top Men Judges in the SCROTUS! Is it too much to ask for, that maybe, just maybe, we could have some over-paid and over-laid Topless Women ass well?

    I nominate Stormy Daniels for starters!

    1. Poor squirrel. I fear you will only be happy if we can pack the courts and then change the moniker to the SCATUS. The A can mean whatever you need it to.

      1. SCROTUS = Supreme Court Rectums & Overlording Turds Under Statism

        SCATUS = ?????

        1. SCATUS = Supreme Court and The Unified States

      2. It’s funny because he admitted he eats poop.

  5. Trying to pack the courts was a big mistake? Yeah, it hurt FDR so bad politically that he only got re-elected two more times.

    1. Had FDR NOT packed the courts,, he’d have gotten re-elected 5 (FIVE) more times, and we’d have been colonizing Mars in 1955!

      (I’ve been studying up on my Harry Turtledove alternate histories, you see).

    2. And got the courts to rule his way on wickard

    3. You’re going to have a hard time convincing the Democrats not to be more like FDR.

  6. Nope I want the libs to pack the courts and add more states. I want them to go whole hog to the left. People won’t see what’s wrong with that until they live it.

    1. “People won’t see what’s wrong with that until they live it.”

      Now that they’ve lived it, MAYBE they won’t, yet AGAIN, elect a, grifter, con-man, egomaniac, entitled, whining, selfish, show-host Pretty-Boy demagogue?

      1. Elected Clinton and Obama, so that description would seem to be the prerequisites.

    2. Here’s strong evidence that head-strong ideological idiots do NOT learn! Not even the hard way! GOP perhaps (I have no crystal ball) MIGHT be committing suicide before our very eyes… It MAY need to be replaced by a NEW conservative party that actually DOES care to “conserve” democracy and a multiparty government!

      OK, evidence:

      Trump blows up the Arizona GOP on his way out
      “The craziness from the state Republican Party … it’s pretty embarrassing,” said a former top Republican official.


        1. Goddamn, the Squirrel really shit up this comments section.

          1. I’m surprised he had any left. He must not be finishing his meals.

    3. The only new state worth adding is Puerto Rico. (Maybe Cuba if they give up on communism and accept the Bill of Rights.)

      Then split off northern California and southern Oregon to keep the Senate balanced, and Republicans might vote aye.

  7. From the February 2021 issue

    At the time of this writing, the Democrats have a grip on the House of Representatives, while the future of the Senate remains to be decided by a pair of special elections that will be held in Georgia in January.

    Maybe the scheduling or dating of Reason‘s issues should be adjusted?

    1. and the Dems’ “grip” on the H of R is very tenuous. 2 years of bad ideas might be enough for voters to come to their senses.

  8. I mentioned the other day that I had switched to the Brave browser after using the Mozilla Firefox browser for a long time after seeing that Mozilla had joined the Dark Side and decided they were all on board with backing a “socially responsible” internet, one that supports the idea of restricting “misinformation”.

    The thing is, switching to the Brave browser wiped out my saved passwords so I’ve had to log in manually to my accounts, including Disqus. And I learned something interesting – shocking, even. Apparently I’ve been shadow-banned at Instapundit and, unknown to me, I’ve apparently been shadow-banned for months. I can comment quite freely at Instapundit, but shortly after commenting, my comments disappear.

    Looking at my Disqus log, which I almost never do, the last several months show plenty of comments and upvotes at other sites that use the Disqus comment system, nothing at all from Instapundit. I’ve gone back to the last several Instapundit posts that I’ve made comments on, and there’s no comments there.

    This pisses me off, because I thought better of that site. If you’re going to ban somebody, ban them and tell them they’re banned and tell them why they’re banned. Shadow-banning where the poster doesn’t know they’re banned is pure bullshit. Pure bullshit. Fuck those guys.

    1. Amen!

      I like “Brave” for cutting clutter… It does all that VERY well (adverts, bypassing paywalls, etc.) So I keep it open for surfing for news.

      I ALSO keep Google Chrome open for shopping, etc., where they want to know who I am, keep my history, passwords, etc. Track away, I am not hung up on my privacy about stuff such as, WHERE do I buy my LED light bulbs? (Amazon, although my Dearly Beloved is pissed off at Jeff Bezos, so I have to keep Amazon buying down to a dull roar).

      1. It is important that manure shops know who you are.

      2. Again, it’s “Awoman” you authoritarian statist sexist.

    2. so they pretend to let you post, then take them down. yikes.

      Yahoo just disabled their comments right before the election. I never go there anymore.

  9. Interesting question, what if following recent precedent, if a law was passed and a lawsuit initiated and a judge places an injunction on adding new justices? Just as Trump clearly had the right to countermand an executive order with another executive order but was denied why could a judge not stop this law from being enacted? Then if it was upheld by a court of appeals the supreme court could just refuse to hear it. The only recourse would be for the judge and justices to be impeached and don’t think they could find the 2/3 in the senate to remove them.
    I know, would never happen but it is an interesting idea.

    1. You assume that a majority of the SCOTUS have not been bought and paid for by the globalists. After their refusal to here the case regarding fraud in the presidential election, it appears that there are only two who have not been. With Roberts as Chief Justice, they most likely would agree to hear any case brought by the left.

  10. These journalists are living in a world of make believe, where their opinions, our opinions, or the opinions of people on the left, even, can have an impact on policy.

    There are only two reasons why anyone does anything: 1) because they want to and 2) because they can. The reason the Democrats didn’t pack the Court in the past was because they couldn’t. The reason they didn’t add two new liberal justices at the same time as Kavanaugh wasn’t because of philosophical, ethical, or utilitarian reasons. It was because they couldn’t. That isn’t a problem anymore. Now they can!

    We wouldn’t be reading this article if this journalist didn’t understand that at some level. They don’t generally bother writing articles about threats to our rights unless those threats are possible, but I think a lot of them are in a delusional state where they think opinions can still have an impact on policy. There really isn’t a good reason to believe that over the next two years. After all, the Democrats have control of every lever of government–except for the Court. The question isn’t what they should do or can do anymore. They can.

    Why wouldn’t they want to take effective control of the rest of government?

    I suspect the source of the delusion that our opinions still have some salience is coming from buyer’s remorse. They wanted Trump to lose, and to what ever extent their work contributed to Trump’s loss, they are responsible for that loss. However, for whatever reason, they didn’t realize that the consequences of Trump’s loss would be the progressives running our government.

    They didn’t realize that Trump losing–and getting what they wanted in that regard–meant the Democrats dominating the government, launching an anti-conservative war on speech, imposing the Green New Deal on us, pushing through Medicare for All, coming after our gun rights, packing the senate and the electoral college by adding new states, and, yes, they didn’t realize that the consequences of Trump losing probably meant packing the Supreme Court.

    They don’t want to face their own complicity in bringing these things about, so they persist in the delusion that they have some kind of influence or control over whether these things will happen. It’s like a defense mechanism. They’re whistling past the graveyard. If they’re finally waking up to realize the negative consequences of Trump losing the White House, I suppose that’s a good thing. However, the consequences of Trump losing were already obvious before the election. Nothing about the progressives’ desire to pursue these policies (such as packing the Court) was unforeseeable or new. They’ve been wanting these things for years. The only thing that changed was that the Democrats took control of the White House and the Senate.

    We already knew in 2018 that Nancy Pelosi promised not to seek another term as Speaker in 2022. We already knew that Biden will be too old and decrepit to crisscross America in a traditional post-pandemic campaign in 2024. Neither of them are in a position to worry about facing another election. The biggest threat to Pelosi’s position as Speaker is the radicals in the House seeking to remove her as Speaker because she proves to be insufficiently progressive in efforts to do things like pack the Supreme Court.

    Who is the intended audience of this article? Who is there in a position of power that cares about what we think–so much that they’ll refrain from doing what they’ve always wanted to do now that they can? These people don’t exist. You’re a blind man in a dark room talking to a black cat that isn’t there. We are being ruled for the next two years. The opinions of journalists don’t matter anymore–and they won’t matter again until the Republicans take one of the levers of government away from the Democrats in 2022.

    1. It is a naivete if reality. People don’t want to believe what is happening even when someone tells you up front what they want. We saw this the last 10 years with the woke craze. If you remember 10 years ago groups stepped forward to discuss the growth of post modernism victimized being spread on campus. Groups like FIRE and campus reform publicly showed what was happening. College presidents coddled the adults in college as of theybwere children. This was all ignored with cries of “it is only on campus, not outside. They will grow up.” The students were already adults. They were grown. They were taught they deserved. And if they didn’t get what they deserved they were victims. They graduated and filled the only low level jobs they could in human resources. Scandals like metoo gave outsized power to these groups now pushing forth a self described morality that got to the level of the CEOs. Now we have corporations making decisions based on post modernism victimhood.

      We were publicly told what the professors who taught these theories wanted. They wrote books. But some just denied it was happening. And now 2+2=5.

      It is the same thing with the left. They have advertised their intentions for a hundred years. The long march through the institutions is well known. They don’t hide what they want. They have a media of semi true believers who disguise what they want for them. And some true believers who realize they have to hide it. But even when told their desires commonly rational people deny it. They get distracted at words instead of actions. That mean tweet is worse than going to war! And so on. That is what reason used to fight against. But now they seem to have succumbed to it by living in highly monoculture areas such as D.C. and N.Y. and by spending most of their research time on Twitter instead of doing the hard work. Reason would do better, as would the federal government, to spread their industries across various states and cultures.

      The funny thing is a lot of this is well known and has been. Issac Asimov’s The Foundation series touched on these concepts immensely.

      1. Damnit. Didn’t write more than Ken. I failed.

      2. Somebody once said something about how Trump’s supporters take him seriously without taking him literally, where Trump’s critics take him literally without taking him seriously.

        Average people on the left take their leadership seriously without taking them literally, but they really should take them literally! Their critics on the right take them both literally and seriously, and they’re absolutely right to do so.

        It’s all a late night discussion in the dorm room until they control all the levers of government. And just because the Republicans can be trusted to fall apart to infighting once they have the White House and both chambers of congress doesn’t mean the Democrats can be trusted to do likewise.

        I see no pressure for moderation on the Democrats’ part.

        1. “I see no pressure for moderation on the Democrats’ part.”

          I sure hope you’re wrong! But I have no crystal ball…

          I have picked a small bench-mark… The EPA. Under Trump, we got a sensible reduction in stupid. As of now, a rancher’s watering pond, or large concrete pipe and small road spanning a gully that gets wet every 5 or 10 years, so that rancher can drive vehicles over said gully… Rancher has now had some simple FREEDOMs restored to HIS use of HIS property!

          If I see Der BidenFuhrer and Congress agitating to get EPA regulations over these so-called “navigable waters” restored, then I will know that all hope is lost, till the next elections!

          1. “then I will know that all hope is lost, till the next elections!”

            Then. Yea. Jesus Christ. Instead of picking any random benchmark and deducing something from it pars pro toto style because you cant see any kind of bigger picture, how about just looking at the bigger picture? Oh you cant. Nevermind. Guess i didnt see the bigger picture for a moment.

            1. OK, let’s pick out a few more. Suggestions?

              How about if they try to take away procedural protections in accusations of sex harrassment/discrimination/assault on campus?

              1. Agreed! I would dearly love to see Biden re-appoint Betsy Devos at Secretary of Education… OR, abolish the whole department! We can always dream, right?

              2. DC statehood requires a constitutional amendment. Not gonna happen.

                And with PR, it might backfire on the liberals who want to recruit PR as a blue pawn. The Dems being good ol colonists. Man, the radical left will be done soon.

                Joe Biden: “If you can’t decide between Democrats and Republicans, you ain’t hispanic!”

          2. That’s like watching the actions of a single bird to determine whether it is Spring.

            Re-joining the Paris Accords or raising corporate tax rates are closer to being harbingers of the apocalypse.

            1. Or a groundhog. Whatever that is.

              1. If Xiden sees his shadow at his inauguration and scampers back to his basement, does that mean six more weeks of Very Dark Winter?

      3. But if we don’t get that within 2 years, then what will our reaction be? That the “left” life isn’t so bad after all? Or what?

        And what if we do get it and turn out to like it? And I don’t mean just collectively, i.e. on average, but as individuals whose opinions have been opposed to such a world, and even have worked in ways we thought might be effective against it? What if it turns out that HyR bloggers, and Reason generally, have not been bought off, but saw that what they’d warned against was coming to pass and turned out to be unexpectedly good?

        1. What if we like it when the courts no longer protect our First and Second Amendment rights, when the economy is almost completely socialist in the name of fighting climate change, etc., etc, . . .

          Are you out of your goddamn mind?

          I don’t need to suffer the consequences of authoritarian and socialist policies to know I won’t like them–because I’m an intelligent person, I avoid making choices that will lead to negative consequences before I suffer them.

          Lab rats demonstrate more intelligence running through mazes than your average progressive that way.

        2. “What if it turns out that HyR bloggers, and Reason generally, have not been bought off, but saw that what they’d warned against was coming to pass and turned out to be unexpectedly good?”

          The consequences of eliminating fossil fuels from the economy or stacking the Supreme Court so that they don’t protect our speech, religious, and Second Amendment rights anymore are not unpredictable. The reason we know our are rights are real, from property rights to religious rights, is because the government violating them has the same kinds of negative consequences in the same ways cross culturally and throughout history.

          1. P.S. The bigger, legitimate question may be, what do we do if the only path back to capitalism and freedom goes through a right-wing dictator? If the choice were between Pinochet or Hugo Chavez, I’d join the opposition to either one of them, but I’d much rather struggle for freedom in a capitalist society than starve. Even Orwell, a democratic socialist, would join the communists–not even to fight the fascists.


    2. Ken

      I agree with you 100% but worried about any true election integrity going forward & any kind of power change in 2022.

      I truly feel the election was stolen in 2020. With that kind of success, why would the Democrats change their game plan in 2022 & even give the Republicans a chance in the midterms? Especially with them now driving the bus & the next two years of The Great Reset.

      1. It’s not only election integrity but packing the senate and the electoral college with new states.

        People need to get their heads around this stuff:

        Look at that link. The bill to make DC a state, gift themselves more senators and more votes in the electoral college has already been introduced, and it has 205 Democrat cosponsors.

        It is still unclear whether this coup by other means will be permanently successful, but this is basically a coup in progress. It’s important to remember that Hugo Chavez took power by way of an election, too. And the people who voted for him did so in the name of democracy.

        1. You know who else took power with an election.

      2. Meanwhile, over at Yahoo, How Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk can save our Democracy. Unreal.

        1. Musk is especially “problematic” because he seems to be the alternative to government action on important progressive goals, and authoritarian socialists hate competition.

          Musk is forcing the revolution of the auto industry worldwide by creating cars that make consumers fall all over themselves to buy. He’s transforming the auto industry to electric cars through market demand, and from a socialist standpoint, that makes him a heretic.

          In fact, Musk transforming the auto industry into a system that drives demand for cheap electricity flies in the face of Biden’s plan to rid the American electricity of cheap natural gas as a fuel in 15 years. Meanwhile, he’s moved to Texas from California and publicly thumbed his nose at the progressives for a long time.

          He’d be wise to do like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, buy himself some news media properties like they did to insulate himself from the left, and then give liberally to liberal causes. Musk is even making the money they spend on NASA look stupid and ridiculous.

          The left is coming after him eventually.

          1. That’s why he left California, to buy himself more time. By the time Texas turns blue he’ll be headed to Mars.

        2. From the end of your cite:

          Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is said to have remarked: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” I’m sure the tech billionaires know Brandeis’ words. The question is, are the tech billionaires evolved enough to understand they have become part of the problem, and if so, can they sublimate their egos enough to do something about it.

          SQRLSY comment: What is “democracy” defined as, here by Brandeis? I think Brandeis is UTTERLY full of shit, till the day that Elon Musk gets more votes than I do! Which is NOT any day soon now! If Elon Musk is able to buy democracy away from us, then our fundamental values are already SOOOO screwed up, that democracy won’t help us any more anyway!

          (Would you vote for Hitler if Hitler bought $55,098,234,872 worth of advertising?)

          1. Brandeis was the one who first popularized federalism in describing states as the laboratories of democracy. It is no wonder you dont get him as you are an authoritarian. You believe in top down power structures and for man to be beholden to the same cultural and legal restraints no matter where or who they live with. Youre authoritarian. You don’t realize it is hard to get 10 people to agree on what to eat for dinner let alone 330 million people to agree on how to live on average. The current system of governance is backwards with the highest realms of power furthest from on individual. Youre not a federalist nor a libertarian. You, like many here, are gkobalists who think elitism is a value when it is merely a prideful deceit. The greatest solutions will always come from the ashes of a thousand failures.

            You view government on the same front as Intelligent Design creationists instead of evolution.

            1. If respect for individual freedoms (to STRONGLY include PROPERTY RIGHTS… He who controls your property, controls your life) makes me an authoritarian, I guess I must be an authoritarian! Says JesseBahnFuhrer, the authoritarian!

              And actual respect for the property of others, as is displayed by Section 230, which has worked VERY well, in the real world, by limiting Government Almighty power? JesseBahnFuhrer wants to tear THAT down, and replace it with an idealistic, STATIST solution! He want MORE Government Almighty power to mess with YOUR web site!

              Hey JesseBahnFuhrer… Der TrumpfenFuhrer has 4 (four) days left in office… Are you STILL lusting to add MORE power to Der TrumpfenFuhrer’s desk? Is it through your thick head YET, that ALL of the powers you pile onto His Desk, ends up on the desk of Der BidenFuhrer? When Der BidenFuhrer and his democrat Congress butcher Section 230 (as YOU have been lusting after), do you think that that which replaces Section 230, is going to be to YOUR liking? Do you think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, simple, short laws LIMITING the power of Government Almighty (such as Section 230) MIGHT just be a GOOD idea, yet?

              1. Maaan, Jesse took you apart. 😀 See, thats what happens when anybody bothers to invest an actual multi-sentence comment into you.

                The only reason you dont crash and burn 24/7 in here is that people tend to have better things to do with their life. Remember I said that? 😉 nobody is really “dumb” in here, but in relative terms, you sure are one of the dumbest, if not TheDumbest™. 😀

                1. And STILL, all of ye “conservatives” here, can NOT ever be bothered to try to “conserve” either ‘A) Multi-party democracy, nor ‘B) Private property, with respect to web sites! Refute for me the below, you, who supposedly support small Government Almighty!

                  Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

                  In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

                  Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

                    1. EVERYTHING is incoherent to those who are too lazy and-or stupid to read and think!

                    2. You’re really incoherent though. Its not like he is the only person to see that.

                      Ermac Wins!

                  1. Your paranoia is out in the open for everyone to see. Just because I think Jesse took you apart doesnt make a conservative. Nobody takes you seriously. All they do is take you sqrlsy. And that makes them either not respond at all or make fun of you. I feel like I’m doing a Nanny’s work when I try to engage you in regular conversation.

                  2. I think I could troll you hard by suddenly advocating pro dissolving 230.

                    I think it would be best to dissolve section 230 to achieve a level playing field for all groups.


                    1. So when are you self-exporting to North Korea, where they do things your way? Please let me know, so I can celebrate on that day!

                    2. I dont talk to disgusting sexists that say amen.

            2. No Jesse you’re the authoritarian because you can’t tell the difference losing an election and being oppressed.

              Authoritarianism is the default. Democracy requires social and personal maturity. Any idiot can fall for rightwing propaganda and white grievance politics. It’s designed to suck you in.

              Read more books, watch less Tim Pool.

              1. Hahahahahahaha

      3. HR 1 has been introduced first by Pelosi like the last 10 years she was leader. The bill is to overturn our election system by making what we saw in 2020 the required statutory norm. Everyone should be worried.

        1. Democrats winning because they got more votes?

          Sounds like how it’s supposed to work.

          How many more decades do you think you can reinvent Jim Crow?

          You think this is about something else? Trump has never once won an election, except that of electors chose essentially at random.

          The people don’t want your stupid shit Jesse, and if you keep trying to take away their right to vote, they’re never going to focus on anything else but that. It’s how Georgia turned blue.

          1. Fuck off, Tony.

    3. Nice, well-conceived, and thorough comment, Ken. Spot on.

  11. I’m guessing that packing the Supreme Court would set off the real civil war. Low grade, assassinations, etc, but definitely blood in the streets. And we know who owns the guns.

    1. “And we know who owns the guns.” — Joe Biden… And he’s coming to get them. Exactly as he says on his campaign website.

  12. The left cannot enact their disastrous agenda through the 50-50 Senate as long as the filibuster remains. The refusal of the news media to acknowledge and understand this is stupifying.

    Unless/until Joe Manchin breaks his promise (to defend the filibuster), there won’t be any court packing, adding new states, green new deal, or most other left wing policy agendas that have been hyped by left (supporting) and right (opposing) wing news outlets.

    I predict no violence will occur next week at the Capitol or state capitols. In the past week, Biden/Pelosi/Schumer have created a police state, and their media propagandists (including WSJ and Fox News) have created a panic by insinuating Trump supporters are planning massive violence in DC and all state capitols.

    I also predict that the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer police state in DC will remain long after next week. All attendees at GOP events will be labelled “domestic terrorists”, while all left wing BLM/Antifa riots will continue being allowed, welcomed and defended as peaceful social justice.

    1. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online Read More.

    2. “Unless/until Joe Manchin breaks his promise (to defend the filibuster), there won’t be any court packing, adding new states, green new deal, or most other left wing policy agendas that have been hyped by left (supporting) and right (opposing) wing news outlets.”

      You keep claiming this, and I’m not sure why. Your point only holds if: Manchin stays steadfast or another Republican doesn’t defect instead. I think Manchin has a price our now-ridiculously spendthrift government can meet. But even if he holds, your point requires that Senators like Romney, Murkowski (who threatened switching parties if Trump didn’t quit early) Collins, or others, don’t also vote to end the filibuster.

      I don’t have faith that all of them will be steadfast. (I actually expect one or more GOP Senators to formally switch parties this term).

      I guess that you do.

      1. Dead nuts Gray. I hope you are wrong but don’t think you are. If people depend on Romney to have a backbone, they are destined for disappointment and anger.

      2. The only thing that’s changed is Democrats are in no mood to defer to rules they know perfectly well Republicans would throw in the garbage the moment they have a path to making policy or putting a judge on a court without it.

        Republicans tried to overthrow the rule that you have to win an election before you get to be president, after all.

        1. They had that path for two years and did nothing of the sort. Goddamn, do you do anything but project your abject authoritarianism on everybody else?

          1. Are we referring to political parties that existed at some point in the ancient past again?

            You think the post-Trump Republican Party would keep the filibuster if they could ditch it and pass a vitally urgent law to replace the 4th of July with Trumpday (brought to you by MyPillow)?

            They already thought they had a literally god-given right to be in perpetual power no matter how few votes they actually got. We’re way past that and into barbarism now.

            So yes I do think Democrats should yank every lever of power at their disposal as quickly as possible, and their number one priority should be figuring how to keep the goddamn lunatics out of power without shredding the constitution (too much). What would you do?

            At least it would have the virtue of returning majority rules to the Senate, just as the people who designed the Senate intended.

    3. Shouldn’t we treat you like you treated all Muslims after 9/11? What’s the difference?

  13. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>> Click here.

  14. If Biden goes ahead with this harebrained idea, the result will be either the second constitutional convention, or the states between NY and CA will start seceding.


    1. Probably both; The Democratic National Socialist Party hasn’t given any respect at-all for the Constitution; even the Republicans in D.C. have a hard time with it.

      So far; The Convention is only to clarify it’s original wording and significance BECAUSE the Democratic National Socialist Party won’t acknowledge it…..

      The end game is the division of the Union into the Nazi Regime and a preserved USA. The Nazi Regime will instantly go to war with the preserved USA because that’s the ideology they’ve been playing this whole time — conquer and consume. The ideal ending will be a financial collapse of the Regime like Detroit; which is certainly expected.. I mean seriously; Democrats cannot put bread on the table but they sure like to STEAL it.

      I spend my time commenting here in hopes that wisdom will prevail and the Regime and it’s supporters will realize what they are doing.

      1. You spend your time commenting here to fuck language and confuse people for your own fascist ends.

        Of course, the guy whose only crime was being elected president is against the constitution, but the angry mob who tried to overthrow the election, they are the ones to preserve it.

        Fascism is blaming your enemy for what you’re guilty of. You could get away with calling Democrats the real racists while you are a faction that is almost 100% white including all the white supremacists. People are dumb enough to fall for that.

        But you’re competing with American symbolism. We have our own gentle propaganda. It’s taught to kids in schools. If you succeed in turning violent coups legitimate and free elections fraud, you’ll take power knowing full well you did so only by destroying what you now control. See if you’re not too fucking stupid and inbred to last more than a day. There won’t be election terms anymore, just rule of the bullet, remember that.

        Liberals can argue with themselves over your rights. I won’t join them. Fascists only get rights until they start trying to take stuff and hurt people.

        1. 1) My ‘fascist’ ends is “Liberty and Justice for ALL” instead of stolen “Healthcare for all”, “Other peoples Houses for all”, “Other peoples income for all”.

          2) Biden’s election was suspicious. Beyond that; the policy he is already *promising* is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the Constitution.

          3) Racism is pretending the color of one’s skin is more important the the person themselves.

          4) I don’t want the *POWER*; I want every individual to keep their naturally instilled individual POWER over Power-Mad [WE] mobs.

          5) The bullet must be used in defense against those who are so Power-Mad they believe they have the right to dictate their utopian dream “PLANS” onto sheeple-slaves who aren’t believed to have any individual liberty or justice.

          I.e. Think they ‘own’ property they never *earned*. Think they ‘own’ labors (i.e. SLAVERY) by Gov-Gun demand (hint, hint; healthcare for all). Think they can dictate the market price of people (i.e. minimum wage).

          “Fascists only get rights until they start trying to take stuff and hurt people.” — I knew you were smart Tony. How do you propose to stop the people who want to *take* stuff?

          1. Much like SQRLSY can’t understand that he’s the crazy one, Tony will never understand that he is the fascist.

          2. You’re just bitching about the Democratic policy platform, which is not secret, not outside of the mainstream, and all relatively logical responses to existing problems.

            The only alternative is a big bunch of fucking nothing. They don’t even print a platform anymore. They did nothing for four years but cater to the whims of a psychopathic moron. You can’t possibly be surprised that someone beat that in an election.

            Just be grateful they’re normal Democrats and not some mirror image radicals to the Republicans. The people could actually make you bite a pillow pretty hard if they wanted to. That’s the price of freedom. You just assume you’re going to be the one in power when the rules go away. Think you’ll get the military on your side by continuing to shit all over the capitol building? Think they’re just going to go along with ruining the democracy that makes their jobs legitimate and secure?

    2. You don’t get to make war on the United States because you lost an election. If this has to be explained to you, then none of your other ideas are likely to be any good and you shouldn’t vote.

      1. The United States defined by the U.S. Constitution as being a Constitutional Union of Republican States —- or the Democratic National Socialist Parties definition of a Single-State Federal Regime?

        1. Just the one. It is what whatever we make of it. Some people want to make it a fascist banana republic shithole. Others want to not kill the planet and shit all over poor people for the sake of num num I like money. And oh dear God, the horror, personal hygiene responsibility. Then we vote and whoever wins gets to do their worst.

          You can fart your protestations into the wind all you want, what’s relevant is who has the vast supply of killing machines at their disposal. Sorry we have to vote on the matter. It’s just that willingly giving it over to rightwing tyrants is… bad.

          1. US Constitutional : Article IV : Section 4
            The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

            – Tony, “republic shithole”,
            – Tony, “It is what whatever [WE]” .. mob RULES .. “make of it.”
            – Tony, “The Constitution was a mistake in history”

            Sell your souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don’t own you [WE] own you.

            It’s actually really nice when speckle’s of honesty comes from a Democrat. Thank you Tony for that.

            It’s sad that their [WE] Democratic National Socialists !!-Rule-!! regime is taking over the USA and none of them seems to care. So long USA; Here comes the [WE] Nazi’s.

          2. “ It is what whatever we make of it.”

            I think that what the attitude about 10 days ago.

          3. “ what’s relevant is who has the vast supply of killing machines at their disposal.”

            I assume, if it comes to that, the government has just as much of a chance of success as they did in the war in Vietnam.

            1. I think the actual question is how much death the militias are willing to put up with before they decide they like their middle class lives, and even that practicing hygiene responsibility isn’t that bad after all. Plus all their names are in the system and the government has 21st century tools now.

              Don’t blame me, I thought we should have reduced military spending a long time ago. Boy was I wrong.

              1. “how much death the militias are willing to put up with” — Spoken like a true Nazi. What you don’t seem to acknowledge is the abstraction of “putting up with” isn’t static. It’s been growing tremendously; especially in Nazi Hands.

  15. I know; Joe Biden can pack the court with Constitutionalists; ya know like putting people the a position under the EXPECTATION they will ACTUALLY do their job instead of electing ‘woke’ moral imagination activists.

    I’m just not sure politicians of the Democratic National Socialist Party (Nazism) is the people who are going to make that happen.

    1. NSDAP: National Socialist Democrats of America Party?

  16. I’m not worried about Biden packing the USSC. His power mad VP, on the other hand, has shown there’s nothing she won’t do, if it advances her interests.

    1. How has she done that? Examples?

      1. Her entire political existence, from her time as D.A., to when Biden was racist, to when Biden wasn’t racist.

        Want a specific example? How about working with Backpage until it was convenient to turn on them? Reason provided quite a bit of coverage.

      2. She tried to murder Kevin Cooper by suppressing the DNA evidence that exonerated him after he was wrongly convicted. She’s a scumbag, which is probably why you’re a fan of hers.


        1. Oh you people are pretending to be upset that she was a prosecutor who did normal prosecutor shit.

          Yeah well neither of them was my first choice in the primary. You win some, you lose some.

          1. And you’re not pretending to not give a fuck.

            1. American politics offers us two choices and the right to bitch about either one, but not much else.

  17. FDR’s threat of court packing is why we have the modern world. What mistake?

    1. Court-packing gave us penicillin?

      1. No, that was science. Also crucial. Also an enemy of Republicans.

    2. “What mistake?” — If today’s USA riots everywhere, incompetent division of Government, endless arguing about which size of pants the federal government should manufacture for ALL the people (oh wait; the government doesn’t manufacture anything), and an economy on the verge of default and collapse was the end-goal.

      Then I guess there was no mistake.

      1. “government doesn’t manufacture anything” — Oh, excuse me; I have to take that back.. They do manufacture ‘fiat’ money (the national-trade mechanism of people’s add-value)…. As well as just take that value right up front without the ‘fiat’ method.

        1. I get it, you’re not a fan of big government.

          I’m not a fan of libertarian horse manure.

          I say let’s vote.

          What was that? You say you want to shoot me and force my family to submit to your will? Oh okay well whatever works.

          1. You say you want to shoot me and force my family to submit to your will?

            No, that would be you and your fellow travelers who hold that view.

            1. You have me mistaken for the guy with the MAGA hat and zip ties.

          2. “I say let’s vote.” – LEGALLY???? Okay; you need 2/3rds of Congress and State Ratification. OH, THAT’S RIGHT YOU DON’T WANT TO VOTE LEGALLY on it!!! You want to do it with election FRAUD!

            1. The day Tony realized he didn’t have enough VOTES to instill the Nazi Regime. The day FDR realized he didn’t have enough VOTES to pass his Nazi legislation…

              Solution; Threaten to CHEAT the SYSTEM!

              1. Sticking with it huh?

                How many people do you think were involved in the conspiracy to fabricate millions of votes, keep every local official involved quiet, somehow persuade dozens of courts to give up their power willingly, fool all poll watchers, and make it so that Trump-voting Republican state officials were willing to help install Joe Biden?

                If Democrats are that smart and had chosen not to cheat, when they could get rid of Trump and nobody would be the wiser except twitchy paranoid goobers, it would almost be a crime for them not to try.

                And why would I not want such capable and crafty people in power over an incompetent orange butterball?

                At any rate only one side committed violence to try to change the election, and it wasn’t the side the military would be on after January 20 according to the opinion of every single human being who matters.

                I’ll take smart over stupid, if both options are evil anyway. You have to give me something to work with here.

                1. Did you just entirely avoid the subject? I think you did. Voting for Nazi Regime take-over would require a Constitutional Amendment that would cancel; at least Article I and Amendment X.

                  You don’t have that vote; so you, just as many of your morally-corrupt party members, resort to pretending [WE] mobs RULE and pretend that “The Peoples” Supreme law doesn’t exist.

          3. Why does “force my family to submit to your will” always mean “make me leave you alone”?

            You’re is the politics of stupid Karen’s. And assholes.

            1. Mine is the politics of capitalism and freedom. Yours is the politics of strongmen and genocide.

              1. Holy crap Tony… Did you just turn Republican? Or did you just self-proclaim something that wasn’t true at all.

    3. Tell it to Korematsu, you piece of shit.


      1. Trump camps make Japanese internment look like a forced vacation. Not to mention he has the luxury of outsourcing his genocide to Central American gangs. Build a wall. Build a wall.

        I assume Democrats have matured since the 1940s at least as much as Republicans have regressed.

        1. I assume Democrats have matured since the 1940s

          Yet you’re here deifying FDR. The interned Japanese were US citizens that had their rights stripped from them. “Trump’s Camps”, which predate Trump, aren’t holding US citizens.

          1. How easy it is for you to dismiss someone’s basic human rights if they lack certain paperwork. See how they get you? Are they human beings or not?

            No policy of inflicting intentional cruelty and separating mothers from children preexisted Trump. And unlike you I don’t give people extra credit for doing evil things that other people did first.

            Trump’s platform was genocidal. You just don’t see it because “illegal aliens” are already dehumanized for you, as you’ve just said.

            This country’s alternative to FDR was letting Nazis win the war and seeing the United States economy fail. Internment was bad. I’m glad you finally found a form of government cruelty you don’t endorse, even if the only reason you do is because a Democrat did it.

            1. What the freak? Are you even a real person?

              “If they lack certain paperwork”? Is that the problem with bank robbers, that they lack check books? They lack the paperwork because they took something, entry into the country, they weren’t legally entitled to.

              Every illegal immigrant in detention who isn’t waiting for trial on some crime could leave detention tomorrow by agreeing to return to their own country.

              And you think that’s worse than what FDR did to American citizens? People lawfully here were imprisoned, lost their property, over nothing more than their ethnic background?

              God, you’re despicable.

            2. Tony, you have really lost it. “Genocidal”? Which race or nation was he trying to exterminate?
              I’m no fan of Trump’s border policies, but your take is insane and offensive to the victims of the actual genocides that have happened.

    4. FDR was a fascist shitbag and the fact that you think he was a great president is all the proof anyone should ever need that you’re one too.

      1. They’re all a little bit fascist shitbag. Of course you do what it takes to win a war, even if what you try is racist and pointless. Who do you think would be more likely to reject the racist and pointless policies today? The ones who based their election strategy on kicking out all the brown people?

        1. Who do you think would be more likely to reject the racist and pointless policies today? The ones who based their election strategy on kicking out all the brown people?

          Who do you think would? The ones pandering to them?

          1. The Trumpers. The Trumpers would obviously be worse for racial minorities. They don’t have any of them on their team, but they do have the neo-Nazis and an entire politics that revolves around white cultural angst.

            And they don’t think people who win elections should have power if they’re not approved by said neo-Nazi thugs. So this is a pretty easy one.

            1. “…The Trumpers would obviously be worse for racial minorities…”

              Tony would obviously be worse for those capable of thinking.
              Fuck of and die, lefty shitstain.

            2. Oh, my god, you are so full of shit. You really think only white people are concerned about the economic issues that were the basis for most of Trump’s support? You think that certain ways of thinking are inherently racial? That’s racism much worse than any offensive statement or casual bigotry. That’s the sort of thing that actually holds back progress on race relations and racial inequality.

              1. Uh huh. So explain why nearly 100% of black people vote for Democrats. Try not making your explanation racist, if you can.

                You know that the “economic anxiety” of the Trumper is a joke among leftists? That everyone knows it’s a crock of shit and a flimsy mask pulled over obvious racism? Trumpers are middle class. They aren’t reaching out for someone with the best ideas to make them more money. They voted for a con artists, for Christ’s sake.

                They’re reaching out for someone to hurt the people they hate. They will say so themselves.

    5. Have you seen the modern world? It’s kinda fucked up in multiple ways.

  18. The court is packed now because McConnell got rid of the filibuster (and because he blocked Garland). 60 votes is what made it necessary to nominate judges that both parties can agree on.

    Roosevelt’s mistake was trying to add justices that would do what he wanted them to. If there was a way to add judges that are independent-minded in order to balance the court and fix the problem McConnell caused it may work.

    You cant have a court whose rulings a lot of people think are illegitimate, and that’s what a lot of Democrats think now.

  19. There is nothing they won’t do to stay in power. The goal is an eternal liberal one party dictatorship.

  20. Damon Root wrote,

    Of course, Biden also conceded that the composition of the courts is a “live ball” among the Democratic base. But he added that “the last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just another political football, whoever’s got the most votes gets whatever they want.”

    Isn’t that exactly what McConnell did for 6 years as Majority Leader? The GOP had the votes in the Senate to block Obama from appointing judges to the federal bench, including our incoming Attorney General, Merrick Garland. By the way, then Sen. Orrin Hatch (R – Utah) had said, “I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them.” This is why Mitch said that he wouldn’t allow a vote at all on the same day that Scalia died. He knew that if Obama nominated someone not totally liberal, that the nominee would be confirmed.

    Once Trump was in, they had the votes to do whatever they wanted as well as a President committed to farming out judicial nominees to conservative/libertarian legal activists such as The Federalist Society, where ideological purity would matter at least as much as experience and intellect. Naturally, the so-called logic of refusing to consider a Supreme Court nominee for a seat that became open in February of an election year was completely disregarded for an opening that occurred in September of 2020.

    The truth is that federal courts became a political football a long time ago. The right will claim that it started with Robert Bork (though there were plenty of valid reasons to oppose his nomination), but conservatives have been angling to try and walk back many of the precedents of the Warren era ever since then.

    1. “…The truth is that federal courts became a political football a long time ago. The right will claim that it started with Robert Bork (though there were plenty of valid reasons to oppose his nomination), but conservatives have been angling to try and walk back many of the precedents of the Warren era ever since then.”

      Sorry, I first looked at this as other than pettifoggery; my mistake.

    2. I’ve seen people bring up Bork repeatedly but… Bork was opposed for allegedly being an ideological extremist (not because of timing), and most importantly – he was given a confirmation vote!

      In the case of Merrick Garland, McConnell simply declined to take up the confirmation process at all. Republican Senators wouldn’t even meet with Garland. They claimed that an election year meant the November election results should determine who gets to assign the seat… for some reason.

      The real explanation is that they prevented it because they had the power to. But of course if will to power is the only language that matters, then you undermine any argument against court packing and turning anything into a “political football”.

      1. I agree with you completely Scottoest. Republicans are great at playing the victim here, but they have been happy to use power to its fullest extent when they have it.

  21. I’m not in favour of “packing” the courts, but I was hoping this article would actually address the single biggest motivator behind renewed calls to do so: the Republican Senate refusal to do their Constitutional duty to advise and consent on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland after Scalia’s death, because “it was an election year” – and then the equally cynical decision to completely contradict that stance and fast-track Comey-Barrett through confirmation after RBG’s death, despite an even narrow window until the election.

    In a more functional scenario, Garland and Comey-Barrett would have both been confirmed. But because McConnell cynically declined to do his job in 2016, the Republicans engineered a 6-3 majority – likely for decades. Because of that, it’s not hard to understand why there’s renewed calls for Biden to simply add to the court.

    I’d be more interested to hear an argument for why Democrats shouldn’t be rightly aggrieved by what happened – that doesn’t rely on trying to retroactively add absurd nuance to the supposed reason Garland wasn’t moved forward but ACB was (which people like Lindsey Graham have tried to do, since they were on-tape in 2016 telling Democrats to call them out if they didn’t do the same thing with a GOP President – probably assuming he’d never be tested on that statement).

    At any rate, I don’t expect Biden to try and pack the courts, and he’s already given indications he doesn’t really support it.

    1. Wow, still butt hurt over Garland. Oh well, he’s the AG now.

      1. “Wow, still butt hurt over Garland. Oh well, he’s the AG now.”

        I see plenty of conservatives “butt hurt” over Bork, and that was so long ago that he’s dead. And Garland isn’t AG yet. He’ll still have to be confirmed. What are the chances of any of the Senate GOP members on the Judiciary Committee expressing any contrition or regret for not even talking to him in 2016?

    2. It wasn’t just Garland either. The GOP almost entirely shut down Obama’s judicial slate for the entirety of his last two years. Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all got through a proportional number of their total nominees in their last two years even with the Senate in the opposing party’s hands. Reagan, Bush, and Clinton had all had over 50 District Court and 10 or more Circuit Court nominees confirmed in their last two years, while Obama only had 18 and 2, respectively, while those two Circuit Court judges had been nominated in 2014. Reagan had a Circuit Court judge that he had nominated in July of his final year confirmed.

      Then Trump had the gall to say that Obama had left him with over 100 vacancies. (He said 128, but that was likely him making a number up, as it was actually 105 vacancies that Trump inherited.) Mitch himself chuckled an Emperor Palpatine laugh when Hannity put the question to him that way. He gleefully admitted to his role and took credit for all of those vacancies.

      Hannity: “I was shocked that former President Obama left so many [judicial] vacancies and didn’t try to fill those positions.”

      Mitch McConnell: “I’ll tell you why. I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration.” [creepy laugh]

      Also, besides the filibuster that Reid nuked in 2013 due to GOP obstruction during Obama’s first term, there is also the “blue slip” action that individual Senators could use to block judicial nominees that would be based in their states. Republicans took full advantage of that during the Obama years, but started ignoring it once it was Trump in office. Two of the vacancies were in Texas, for instance, and had been open since 2012 and 2013, but it could be pointless to even try and appoint someone if that state’s senators had announced opposition.

      This seems to have been the Republican’s excuse for everything going back years. “The Democrats did it, too,” they will say, only they will exaggerate and mislead about what the Democrats actually did and/or don’t say how much further they are escalating things. Besides, whether you call it “whataboutism” or the proper Latin phrase for the logically fallacy, tu quoque (You also), that kind of argument can only ever make the side appealing to hypocrisy feel better about themselves. It doesn’t actually refute anything or put forward any higher principle.

      If people really want the judicial nomination and confirmation process to become less political then they need to commit to actually making it less political. If all people like Damon Root are going to do is talk about how politicized the other side has made the judiciary, then they are only speaking to themselves and nothing will change.

  22. Before restoring balance to the Supreme Court, the first thing our new Lord and Savior must do is to round up all citizens of Japanese descent and intern them in concentration camps for the duration of The War.

    It’s the only way to be sure.

    1. This time around it will be citizens of wrong think who will be rounded up and interned. For a much longer duration, if they allow that to happen at all.

      1. No way, man. It Couldn’t Happen Here.

  23. Are you looking for the محامي في جدة ? Do you have legal problems and need a lawyer in Jeddah to solve them? If it is, then I am happy to inform you that you have reached the right destination in choosing the best lawyer in Jeddah

  24. Who is the best lawyer in Riyadh محامي في الرياض : and what is his number? The question many of us ask each other when dealing with legal issues. Really, where do I find the best lawyer in Riyadh suitable for all legal cases, including commercial cases, divorce, personal status, transfer of property, checks and labor courts?

  25. “Joe Biden shouldn’t repeat FDR’s big mistake.”

    If it is stupid, and the exact wrong thing to do, China Joe will do it. When it fails you can count on him to double-down on the error. When it continues to fail he will blame Trump.

  26. Court packing, decade-long term limits, and forced retirement at 65 sounds like the package we need.

Comments are closed.