Democrats revived calls to pack the Supreme Court with liberals last week after the court&#8217;s conservative majority decided several cases the wrong way, as liberals view it.
On Thursday and Friday, the Supreme Court handed down three decisions on multiple closely watched cases. The court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> against Harvard and the University of North Carolina&#8217;s race-based admissions processes, it <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> in favor of a Christian graphic designer who did not want to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, and the court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-delivers-defeat-to-biden-admin-on-student-loan-forgiveness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">struck down</a> President Biden&#8217;s student loan forgiveness program.
Democrats and liberals raged at the high court, some calling to expand the court&#8217;s bench to dilute the conservative majority, which was cemented by former President Donald Trump&#8217;s three conservative nominees.
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said it would not be &#8220;extreme&#8221; to add more justices.
&#8220;Expanding the size of the Supreme Court isn’t extreme or unprecedented — but the opinions of this Court certainly are,&#8221; Schiff wrote in a tweet Friday.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Expanding the size of the Supreme Court isn’t extreme or unprecedented — but the opinions of this Court certainly are.
&mdash; Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamSchiff/status/1674795231353667587?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Schiff repeated his call to pack the court in an email to supporters of his Senate campaign, but he switched the language, dubbing it &#8220;unpacking&#8221; the court.
“We must unpack the court by expanding the number of justices on the court, instituting term limits, and enacting a code of ethics like every other federal court,” Schiff wrote to supporters, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/adam-schiff-leads-call-to-pack-supreme-court-with-liberals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard.
“I’ve spent years talking about the need to expand, unstack, and reform the Supreme Court after Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell stacked it with partisans. This week we saw firsthand the consequences of its imbalance,” Schiff added in the email.
Schiff was just <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-votes-to-censure-adam-schiff" target="_blank" rel="noopener">censured</a> last month in the House. The censure resolution accused Schiff of misleading the American public about Trump&#8217;s supposed ties to Russia while leading the House Intelligence Committee&#8217;s investigations into the president.
Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said Sunday that packing the court should be on the table.
“I think everything should be on the table,” Pressley said on MSNBC, responding to a question about whether she supports adding more justices.
The Supreme Court &#8220;has been emboldened in rolling back the hands of time, undermining and rolling back what should be fundamental civil human rights,&#8221; she added.
&#8220;So everything should be on the table: reform and expansion,&#8221; Pressley said.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1320881248861126663?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously called</a> for expanding the Supreme Court, and on Sunday she called for checking the court&#8217;s power.
“The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court,” Ocasio-Cortez <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/02/pressley-aoc-changes-supreme-court-00104537" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Sunday on CNN.
Some liberal academics called to pack the court as well.
&#8220;Biden Won&#8217;t Pack the Supreme Court, and It&#8217;s Killing Democracy,&#8221; <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/biden-wont-pack-supreme-court-its-killing-democracy-opinion-1810241" target="_blank" rel="noopener">read</a> the headline of a Friday Newsweek opinion article by David Faris, an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University in the Chicago area.
&#8220;With or without Biden, court expansion must become a litmus test for any Democrat who wants to pursue federal office,&#8221; Faris wrote. &#8220;The alternative is to spend the next 15 Junes learning which part of American public life has been needlessly upended by corrupt, originalist fanatics, and which new ways the Supreme Court has made it easier for Republicans to gain and wield power.&#8221;
Meanwhile, most Americans do not support adding justices to the bench, although most Democrats appear to want a packed court.
About 55% of voters oppose expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices, while 64% of Democrats support adding the extra four justices, <a href="https://heartland.org/opinion/heartlandrasmussen-poll-majority-of-democrats-would-abolish-supreme-court-call-it-racist-and-sexist/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to a survey last year from the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports.

Washington, D.C., scenes

Democrats Revive Calls To Pack Supreme Court

Affirmative Action

Court Packing

Democrats

First Amendment

Freedom of Speech

Supreme Court

House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday that would place strict term limits on Supreme Court Justices and mandate that the President make new appointments to the Court every two years.
A group of Democrats in the House, led by Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson, introduced the bill into the record Tuesday evening. The bill, titled the ‘‘<a href="https://hankjohnson.house.gov/sites/hankjohnson.house.gov/files/documents/SCOTUS_TERMS_xml.pdf">Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2022</a>,&#8221; or TERM Act, would place term limits of 18 years on Supreme Court justices, and mandate that the President appoint a justice to the Court twice during each term.
The first section of the bill deals with the appointment of justices. The text states:
<blockquote>The President shall, during the first and third years after a year in which there is a Presidential election, nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one justice of the Supreme Court.</blockquote>
The bill only allows Presidents to appoint Supreme Court justices according to these parameters.
Next, the bill establishes an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court Justices from the time they are commissioned to serve on the Court. The text states:
<blockquote>Each justice shall serve in regular active service for 18 years from the date of the justice’s commission, after which the justice shall be deemed to have retired from regular active service under section 371.</blockquote>
Furthermore, the bill would force all the justices sitting on the Court at the time of the bill&#8217;s passage to retire upon the appointment of a new justice, beginning with the longest-serving justice and continuing in order of duration of service.
Finally, the bill amends current law on the books regarding the number of justices. The bill stipulates that whenever the number of justices falls below the number established by law, &#8220;due to vacancy, disability, or disqualification,&#8221; the most-recently retired justice will serve as an associate justice until a replacement is appointed to the Court.
The bill was introduced in the House by Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson; co-sponsors of the bill include New York Congressman and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler, Judiciary Committee members David Ciciline of Rhode Island, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, and Steve Cohen of Tennessee, and California Reps. Karen Bass and Ro Khanna. A version of the bill is also being introduced in the Senate by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
In a <a href="https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-johnson-introduces-supreme-court-justice-term-limit-measure-restore">statement</a> accompanying the legislation, Johnson attacked the current makeup of the Supreme Court, saying that the Court is &#8220;facing a legitimacy crisis&#8221; because of its conservative majority, and because five of six conservatives were appointed by Presidents who did not win a majority of the popular vote.
“This Supreme Court is increasingly facing a legitimacy crisis,” Johnson said. “Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on the American people, who do not want it.  Term limits are a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained majority on the court.&#8221;
The bill is the latest attempt by Democrats to radically reshape the Court, after the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision in June. Back in 2021, Johnson and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey introduced bills in the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2584/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Judiciary+Act+of+2021%22%5D%7D&amp;r=1&amp;s=1">House</a> and <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1141?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Judiciary+Act+of+2021%22%5D%7D&amp;s=1&amp;r=1">Senate</a> to expand the number of justices on the Court from 9 to 13.

Senate Prepares For Supreme Court Nomination Hearings After Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett For Open Seat

Democrat Bill Would Impose Term Limits On SCOTUS Justices, Mandatory Replacements Every Two Years

House Democrats

President Joe Biden does not support efforts by some Democrats to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court, the White House announced on Saturday.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre clarified the president&#8217;s position on the issue with reporters during an Air Force One press gaggle on Saturday.
&#8220;I was asked this question yesterday, and I’ve been asked it before — and I think the President himself — about doing — about expanding the Court. That is something that the President does not agree with. That is not something that he wants to do,&#8221; Jean-Pierre <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/06/25/press-gaggle-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-en-route-munich-germany/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
&#8220;There was a commission that was put together about how to potentially move forward with the Court — reform the Court. I don’t have anything more to share from any — any final decision that the President has made,&#8221; she added.
The White House secretary added additional comments regarding the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday.
&#8220;I was talking about the popularity of how much Americans support Roe v. Wade. Never — this is the most support that Roe — Roe v. Wade has gotten ever,&#8221; Jean-Pierre stated.
&#8220;I mean, it is — it has such a majority popularity. And so for the Court to have made this extreme ruling is so out of step. It’s so out of step not only with this decision, but it’s also so out of step with the Constitution,&#8221; she noted.
On Friday, Biden shared his remarks regarding the verdict overturning the nearly half-century abortion precedent.
&#8220;Now, with Roe gone, let’s be very clear: The health and life of women in this nation are now at risk,&#8221; the president <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/24/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-supreme-court-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
He called the ruling &#8220;a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
State laws banning abortion are taking effect today – some of them so extreme that women can be punished for protecting their own health, even in cases of rape and incest.
The health and lives of millions of women are at risk. <a href="https://t.co/wRGtHGgoWp">pic.twitter.com/wRGtHGgoWp</a>
&mdash; President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1540470588141178883?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Biden&#8217;s speech directly attacked conservative-led states with abortion &#8220;trigger&#8221; laws that further limit the procedure following the decision. 13 states have laws set to go into effect within 30 days of the ruling to restrict abortions.
“Several other states where recent antiabortion legislation has been blocked by the courts are expected to act next, with lawmakers moving to activate their dormant legislation. A handful of states also have pre-Roe abortion bans that could be brought back to life,&#8221; The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
Missouri became the first state to effectively ban abortion following the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling. Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R-MO) signed an opinion regarding the state&#8217;s trigger law less than one hour following the court&#8217;s announcement.
https://twitter.com/AGEricSchmitt/status/1540338042413944832
State Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-TX) noted on Friday that abortion is effectively illegal in Texas following the ruling.
Paxton <a href="https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1540339215581470723" target="_blank" rel="noopener">closed</a> his office to celebrate the decision and said he would make the date an annual holiday &#8220;as a memorial to the 70 million lives lost&#8221; because of abortion.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
SCOTUS just overruled Roe &amp; Casey, ending one of the most morally &amp; legally corrupt eras in US history. Praise the Lord.
Abortion is now illegal in Texas.
And today I’m closing my office—and making it an annual holiday—as a memorial to the 70 million lives lost bc of abortion.
&mdash; Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) <a href="https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1540339215581470723?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Joe Biden

‘Not Something He Wants To Do’: Biden Does Not Support Packing The Supreme Court

Biden Does Not Support Packing The Supreme Court, White House Confirms

Abortion

Karine Jean-Pierre

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) used the horrific shooting that took place at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, to argue that one way to prevent more school shootings was to pack the Supreme Court.
Markey began by calling for <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/biden-goes-around-congress-with-police-reform-executive-order-blames-republicans/">gun control</a> — as have a number of his Democratic colleagues and even President Joe Biden — and then immediately pivoted to argue that the only way to ensure that gun control laws would not face a challenge or even face the possibility of being overturned was to add at least two justices to the Supreme Court.
&#8220;Ed Markey uses the Texas shooting to &#8230; attack the Supreme Court and push for court packing. If you&#8217;re one of the people who wants Washington to &#8216;do something,&#8217; on gun violence look at people like Ed Markey who want to shift the debate to every other political goal they have,&#8221; Matt Whitlock tweeted, along with video of Markey&#8217;s comments.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Ed Markey uses the Texas shooting to.. attack the Supreme Court and push for court packing.
If you&#39;re one of the people who wants Washington to &quot;do something,&quot; on gun violence look at people like Ed Markey who want to shift the debate to every other political goal they have. <a href="https://t.co/GumsYlR02y">pic.twitter.com/GumsYlR02y</a>
&mdash; Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/1529846488616079360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;We have to take very seriously the threat, which an illegitimate, far-Right Supreme Court poses to gun safety in our country,&#8221; Markey said, going on to claim that former President Donald Trump had &#8220;stolen&#8221; two Supreme Court seats and, in doing so, had rendered the Court &#8220;illegitimate.&#8221;
&#8220;We have to expand the Supreme Court to get back the two stolen seats that the Republicans and Donald Trump took from the American people, so that we can ensure that when we put gun safety laws on the books, they are not overridden by the Supreme Court of the United States,&#8221; he said.
Markey also joined President Biden in using the shooting to attack the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Republicans who support the Second Amendment.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“What the American people want is for the NRA to stand for ‘Not Relevant Anymore’ in American politics.”
Sen. Ed Markey joins fellow Democratic senators and gun reform activists at press conference following elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. <a href="https://t.co/bo5GYe1goQ">https://t.co/bo5GYe1goQ</a> <a href="https://t.co/elAvxYDWAE">pic.twitter.com/elAvxYDWAE</a>
&mdash; ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1529856281707700227?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;What the American people want the NRA to stand for is &#8216;Not Relevant Anymore in American politics,'&#8221; Markey said, claiming that the Republican Party was stuck in the grip of the NRA and forced to &#8220;do what the NRA tells them that they should do.&#8221;
President Biden, after giving a cursory nod to the victims of Tuesday&#8217;s shooting, parlayed the <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/its-just-sick-biden-uses-school-shooting-address-to-slam-gun-lobby/">remainder of his address</a> to the nation into an attack aimed at the &#8220;gun lobby&#8221; and a warning aimed at any political opponents who would stand in the way of &#8220;common sense gun laws&#8221; moving forward.

US-POLITICS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DEMONSTRATION

Senate Democrat Uses Texas School Shooting To Push For Packing The Supreme Court

Ed Markey Uses Uvalde Shooting Victims To Demand Packing The Supreme Court

Donald Trump

Ed Markey

Merrick Garland

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer warned during a Fox News interview with anchor Chris Wallace that any attempts to expand the Supreme Court could undermine its legitimacy.
&#8220;I don’t intend to die on the court,&#8221; Breyer told Wallace, later adding that there were &#8220;many considerations&#8221; that factor into his decision-making when it comes retirement.
When asked about a push from Democrats to expand the Supreme Court, Bryer responded, &#8220;Well, if one party could do it, I guess another party could do it.&#8221;
&#8220;On the surface, it seems to me you start changing all these things around, and people will lose trust in the court,&#8221; Breyer added.
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on calls for his retirement" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SMzT-vKGXTM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED VIA <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/fox-news-sunday-on-september-12-2021">FOX NEWS</a>:
<blockquote>CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: He&#8217;s been a Supreme Court justice for 27 years, and is now the target of a new push by liberals who want him to step down so he can be replaced by someone younger. That makes it all the more timely that Stephen Breyer has just come out with a new book, called &#8220;The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics,&#8221; where he discusses the very real threat the court will get caught up in today&#8217;s polarized debate.
I sat down recently with Justice Breyer for an exclusive one-on-one.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Justice Breyer, welcome back to &#8220;Fox News Sunday.”
STEPHEN BREYER, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Thank you.
WALLACE: I want to start with the premise of your book. You quote Alexander Hamilton as saying that the judiciary has neither purse, like Congress, nor sword, like the executive, and so it has to rely on public acceptance for its authority. Is the public acceptance — is the authority of the court in jeopardy?
BREYER: Hard to say. I mean, I don&#8217;t think — I&#8217;m an optimist, you know, and so I think, well, people understand, to some degree, why it&#8217;s a good idea what Hamilton thought. And he thought the court should be there because there should be somebody, somebody who says, when the other two branches of the government have gone outside the confines of that document, who&#8217;s that, the president? Well, he was a little worried the president might say whatever he did was right. Congress? Well, some countries do have that. And a member of Congress knows what&#8217;s popular. If he didn&#8217;t know what was popular, he won&#8217;t be there — or she won&#8217;t be there for a long time.
But this document is made for unpopular people, just as much as for popular people. So —
WALLACE: I&#8217;m curious &#8212; I&#8217;m curious, do you carry a copy of the Constitution with you, or just for TV?
BREYER: No, not just for TV. It&#8217;s always in my pocket, and I hope I will put a jacket on that has one in my pocket, because you never know when somebody&#8217;s going to ask a question.
WALLACE: Which brings us to the second half of the title of your book, &#8220;The Peril of Politics.&#8221; You say that if people come to view judges, justices, as politicians in robes, that that undercuts the authority of the court.
BREYER: To a degree, I think it would. I mean, junior league politicians. Hey, if you want to have a politician, let&#8217;s have a senior league politician.
WALLACE: One of the most interesting parts of your book, you say at one point, it&#8217;s wrong to think of the court as a political institution. But then you quickly add, to say that there&#8217;s a complete divorce between the court and politics isn&#8217;t quite right either.
BREYER: Yes, exactly.
WALLACE: So which is it?
BREYER: When the court — in what I think was one of its, perhaps its greatest decision, said the words of this Constitution, which say equal protection of the law, mean that you cannot have racial segregation by law.
When they said that, a few years later, a case comes up about marriage between a black man and a white woman. Ha, did they hear that and say it was illegal? Frankfurter said — I believe it was Frankfurter, don&#8217;t take it now. Hear the case later.
Why? Because they were having a very, very, very hard time getting the South to accept their ruling. And so they&#8217;re interested in that. And Earl Warren, of course, was a great political figure. And I&#8217;ve always thought — I have no evidence &#8212; but I&#8217;ve always thought that his experience in politics there led him to think, let&#8217;s not take it now.
Eventually they took it and they said, of course, people of different races can get married. Of course. But that timing — that timing is the kind of thing that, well, the law books don&#8217;t teach you that. It&#8217;s not there in the [treatises]. You see what I mean?
WALLACE: In other words, even the court can&#8217;t go too far too fast.
BREYER: No.
WALLACE: So let&#8217;s pursue that.
You say judges should not play politics, they should not push ideology, but they do have different jurisprudential philosophies. And I want to quote you, specifically. You write, &#8220;Some judges emphasize text and history, some emphasize purposes and consequences.&#8221;
But, Justice Breyer, isn&#8217;t that a bit of a copout because don&#8217;t the judges, the textualist[s], almost always tilt conservative, and don&#8217;t the consequences justices &#8212; you&#8217;ve been accused of being that &#8212; generally lean liberal?
BREYER: I don&#8217;t know. I mean, it&#8217;s so easy to say. And there is a recent case involving gay rights &#8212; rights in the workplace, not to be [fired] because of sexual discrimination.
WALLACE: Right. Right, right.
BREYER: That was made up of a group of people, the majority there, who — they included people who emphasized consequences, and they included people who emphasized absolutely pure text. You see?
WALLACE: One of your arguments against seeing the court as political is the fact that it refused to ever hear the appeals from the Trump camp about the 2020 election, didn&#8217;t even hear them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: No judge has had the courage, including the Supreme Court. I am so disappointed in them. No judge, including the Supreme Court of the United States, has had the courage to allow it to be heard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Why was that?
BREYER: Why was it? Because they didn&#8217;t bring a case, I guess, that met the normal criteria for being heard. When we decide to take a case, there have to be four votes to take it. So I can&#8217;t go beyond that.
What we do know is that there were not four votes to take it because it wasn&#8217;t taken. And there are criteria, and if we don&#8217;t take a case it&#8217;s, you know, I mean the reason was &#8212; in all likelihood is that the criteria weren&#8217;t met.
WALLACE: One of the problems that you discuss in your book is the growing partisanship of the confirmation process. Back in 1994, you were confirmed by the U.S. Senate 87 to nine.
Question: do you think, in 2021, as a former staffer for Edward M. Kennedy —
BREYER: Yes.
WALLACE: There&#8217;s any chance you would get 87 votes?
BREYER: I know what you&#8217;re saying and the answer is, of course, no.
WALLACE: Look at what Senator Mitch McConnell did. In 2016, he refuses to give Merrick Garland even a hearing in the eight months before the election. And then, in 2020, he pushes through Amy Coney Barrett in one month before the election.
Doesn&#8217;t that undercut the authority of the court?
BREYER: I was confirmed, and I was nominated. And the confirmation process and the nomination process, well, I say, usually when you ask me about that, and people do, I say it&#8217;s like asking for the recipe for Chicken a la King from the point of view of the chicken.
And &#8212; and I will say —
WALLACE: I &#8212; I &#8212; that &#8212;
BREYER: Yes, that&#8217;s a [flip] joke.
WALLACE: Right.
BREYER: But the truth of the joke is, that&#8217;s not &#8212; that&#8217;s the political environment. Now, you may disapprove of it, I may disapprove of it, and if enough people in the public want it to change or be modified one way or the other, it will be.
WALLACE: I interviewed your colleague, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, back in 2012. And I want to play a clip from that interview.
Take a &#8212; take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Will you time your retirement so that a more conservative president can appoint a like-minded justice?
ANTONIN SCALIA, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON U.S. SUPREME COURT: I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I&#8217;ve tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. But I mean, I shouldn&#8217;t have to tell you that, unless you think I&#8217;m a fool.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Do you agree with Scalia that a justice who is unmindful of the politics of the president who replaces him, who&#8217;s unmindful of that, is a fool?
BREYER: I [don’t] intend to die on the court. I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ll be there forever. But &#8212; but I&#8217;ve &#8212; I&#8217;ve said a few of the considerations previously and I — I think &#8212;
WALLACE: But do you think the consideration that Scalia mentioned, I don&#8217;t want to be replaced by somebody who&#8217;s going to undo everything that I&#8217;ve spent &#8212;
BREYER: That I&#8217;ve done? That I&#8217;ve &#8212; undo everything I&#8217;ve done?
WALLACE: Yes.
BREYER: I see the point. And probably, in your background, there&#8217;s &#8212; can be something. There are many considerations. Many, many considerations.
WALLACE: This brings us to the calls for you to step down while a Democratic president and a [Democratic] &#8212; can appoint your successor and a Democratic Senate can confirm your successor. Here&#8217;s one example of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): He makes his own decision about if he&#8217;s going to retire. But he&#8217;s going &#8212; if he&#8217;s going to retire, it should be sooner rather than later if you are concerned about the court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: What do you think of those calls?
BREYER: Well, I think that they&#8217;re entitled to their opinion. I think they &#8212; and not only they understand the political world much better than I, or they understand it pretty well. And there we are. What else you want me to say?
WALLACE: They would say you ignored those calls and increased the chances that a Republican Senate will be there to confirm your successor.
BREYER: Well, I mean, there are factors. There are many factors. In fact, quite a few. And the role of the court and so forth is one of them and the situation, the institutional considerations are some and &#8212; and I &#8212; I believe &#8212; I can&#8217;t say I&#8217;d take anything perfectly into account, but in my own mind I &#8212; I think about those things.
WALLACE: So why didn&#8217;t you retire?
BREYER: I didn&#8217;t retire because I had decided on balance I wouldn&#8217;t retire.
WALLACE: President Biden has appointed a commission to come back to him in November and discuss &#8212; weigh in on possible reforms to the court.
What do you think of the idea of increasing the number of justices on the court?
BREYER: Well, if one party could do it, I guess another party could do it.
And the more thing &#8212; I mean it&#8217;s fairly surface &#8212; on the surface, it seems to me you start changing all these things around, and people will lose trust in the court.
WALLACE: What about term limits? People, even justices, live a lot longer now than they did back in the 18 century. Would it lower the political heat if, say, a justice served for 18 years instead of a life term?
BREYER: Well, I think you could do that. It should be a very long-term because you don&#8217;t want the judge who&#8217;s holding that term to start thinking about his next job. But it would make life easier for me.
WALLACE: You just turned 83 years old. I&#8217;ve got to say, you look terrific. You&#8217;re of sound mind and body.
BREYER: Thank you. Thank you.
WALLACE: What do you hope people say about your service on the court?
BREYER: The best thing they could say, I thought I liked very much, is it has an appeal to me, was what Thurgood Marshall said. And they said, well, what do you want on your tombstone? And he said, he did his best. That&#8217;s it.
I&#8217;m there for everybody. I&#8217;m not just there for the Democrats. I&#8217;m not just there for the Republicans. And I&#8217;m not just there because a president was a Democrat who appointed me. It&#8217;s a very great privilege to be in that job.
And part of it is to remember that you&#8217;re there for everyone. They won&#8217;t like what you say half the time or more, but you&#8217;re still there for them. And that&#8217;s the privilege of the job in a way. You have to give your all. And you have to work as hard as you can.
So, you see, I think it&#8217;s important we have trust.
WALLACE: The name of the book is &#8220;The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics.&#8221;
Justice Breyer, thank you.
BREYER: Thank you very much, Chris. Thank you.</blockquote>

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer during our interview in his office on August 27 in Washington, DC.

Liberal Justice Breyer Warns Against Democrats Packing Supreme Court: ‘People Will Lose Trust In The Court’

Stephen Breyer

Democrats have revived their calls to expand the Supreme Court after the Court ruled in favor of conservatives this week.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday in favor of two GOP-passed Arizona voting laws aimed at safeguarding election integrity.
&#8220;Today’s ruling is another blow to voting rights,&#8221; Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) wrote in a tweet.
&#8220;We have no time to waste to protect the right to vote. We must abolish the filibuster and pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act. And we must expand the Supreme Court,&#8221; Markey said.
&#8220;Today, the Supreme Court once again gutted the Voting Rights Act. If we don’t expand the Court soon, we will no longer have a democracy to protect. What are we waiting for?&#8221; wrote Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) in a tweet.
&#8220;And still some people have the nerve to question whether Court expansion is necessary,&#8221; Jones wrote in another tweet responding to a tweet that accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of having &#8220;stolen&#8221; Supreme Court seats for former President Trump.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) also <a href="https://twitter.com/ReElectHank/status/1410656690756800514">called</a> for expanding the Supreme Court, as well as abolishing the filibuster, in a tweet.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today’s ruling is another blow to voting rights. We have no time to waste to protect the right to vote. We must abolish the filibuster and pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
And we must expand the Supreme Court. <a href="https://t.co/PwLLAlfXcx">https://t.co/PwLLAlfXcx</a>
&mdash; Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1410605592721313797?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 1, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today, the Supreme Court once again gutted the Voting Rights Act. 
If we don’t expand the Court soon, we will no longer have a democracy to protect. 
What are we waiting for?<a href="https://t.co/mti1ZG6Enf">pic.twitter.com/mti1ZG6Enf</a>
&mdash; Mondaire Jones (@MondaireJones) <a href="https://twitter.com/MondaireJones/status/1410705072263159820?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 1, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court’s majority <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">opinion</a> on the Arizona voting laws, concluding that they do not violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Alito was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Last year, some Democrats called for adding justices to the Supreme Court, known as “court-packing.” In April, congressional Democrats <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132">introduced</a> a bill to expand the court from nine to 13 justices.
President Biden refused to answer questions on court-packing during his campaign last year.
“Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue,” Biden responded during a presidential debate in September when pressed on whether he supported increasing the number of justices.
Over the last several years, Democrats have made clear that they strongly disapprove of each of Trump&#8217;s three Supreme Court picks.
In March of last year, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), then the Senate Minority Leader, <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/i-should-not-have-used-the-words-i-did-schumer-walks-back-supreme-court-threat-after-being-scolded-by-chief-justice/">stood</a> on the steps of the Supreme Court and spoke before a throng of abortion advocates as the court took up its first case dealing with abortion since Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer declared. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
A spokesman for Schumer <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/i-should-not-have-used-the-words-i-did-schumer-walks-back-supreme-court-threat-after-being-scolded-by-chief-justice/">said</a> at the time that the senator&#8217;s remark was a “reference to the political price” Republicans would pay for confirming Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the court. The spokesman added that the justices would inspire a “major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.”

supreme court

Democrats Revive Court-Packing Calls After Supreme Court Decisions Favoring Conservatives

On Monday, responding to reports that Democrats were threatening to pack the Supreme Court if a pro-life Mississippi law is upheld by the Supreme Court, Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton fired back with one word to describe the Democrats’ plans: “Blackmail.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Blackmail. <a href="https://t.co/1ZnYnnIuxf">https://t.co/1ZnYnnIuxf</a>
&mdash; Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1396922599876268032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 24, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Court agreed this week to hear the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which challenges a Mississippi law passed in 2018 that bans abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy with a few exceptions. Amy Howe of <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/court-to-weigh-in-on-mississippi-abortion-ban-intended-to-challenge-roe-v-wade/">ScotusBlog</a> explained:
<blockquote>When the Mississippi legislature passed the law at the heart of the case in 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization – the only licensed abortion provider in the state – went to court to challenge the law’s constitutionality and block the state from enforcing it. A federal district court agreed with the clinic, reasoning that the Supreme Court’s cases do not allow states to ban abortions before a fetus becomes viable, which occurs at around 24 weeks of pregnancy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that decision.</blockquote>
In the summer of 2020, Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to decide whether bans on pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional. The clinic wanted the Supreme Court to stay out of the matter.
Democrats, concerned that the Mississippi law is a precursor to the repeal of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, reacted to the Court deciding to hear the case by espousing packing the Court, as <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/554843-democrats-roe-v-wade-blow-would-fuel-expanding-supreme-court">The Hill</a> reported.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) threatened, “It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles. It’s already driving that movement.  Chipping away at Roe v. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I) echoed, “It really enlivens the concerns that we have about the extent to which right-wing billionaire money has influenced the makeup of the court and may even be pulling strings at the court.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-M.A.) said, “Trying to legislate with a GOP-packed Supreme Court and the Jim Crow filibuster is always 1 step forward, 3 steps back.”
Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, warned that expanding the Court was on the agenda: “Groups like ours are doing work every day of the week, 52 weeks a year to build support for that proposal. … Part of our strategy here is to build support slowly but surely and grind out as much consensus around these ideas as we can for now and then be ready for if and when a big moment grabs the public attention comes. I think [the Supreme Court’s] next term is shaping up to be that.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Hears Testimony From Attorney General Nominee Merrick Garland

‘Blackmail’: Cotton Blasts Dems Threatening To Pack Supreme Court If It Upholds Mississippi Pro-Life Law

Democratic Party

Mississippi

Tom Cotton

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court, will be knocking the far-left proposal of court packing in his upcoming book.
Though Breyer has repeatedly denounced court packing in past statements, his book, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Authority-Court-Peril-Politics/dp/0674269365/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=The+Authority+of+the+Court+and+the+Peril+of+Politics&amp;qid=1621354005&amp;sr=8-1&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=newsmedi9a-20&amp;linkId=JWQX7Q4SOSP2L6BP" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics,</a>&#8221; will come at a time when Democrats have been<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-leaders-rise-to-condemn-dems-court-packing-plan"> seriously flirting</a> with the idea to shift the court&#8217;s power balance. According to <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674269361" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harvard University Press</a>, Breyer will reflect upon how the authority of the Supreme Court will be diminished if it becomes a game of political football.
&#8220;A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme Court — how that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it,&#8221; the publisher wrote in a synopsis of his book.
Breyer&#8217;s book will further argue that the Supreme Court should not be subjected to partisan politics, Right or Left.
&#8220;A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political,&#8221; Harvard University Press wrote. &#8220;On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than &#8216;politicians in robes&#8217; ― their ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. As a result of this perceived crisis, and for the first time since the New Deal era, there is serious talk of court-packing in the name of ideological balance.&#8221;
&#8220;Breyer warns that public trust would be eroded by political intervention, dashing the authority of the Court,&#8221; the outlet elaborated. &#8220;Without the public&#8217;s trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government and a guarantor of the rule of law, threatening the foundations of our constitutional system.&#8221;
Breyer will further argue that the solution to a decline in public trust will be to better educate the public about an independent judiciary.
&#8220;If public trust is now in decline, the solution is to promote better understanding of how the judiciary actually works: Overwhelmingly, judges adhere to their oath to avoid considerations of politics and popularity,&#8221; added Harvard University Press. &#8220;The peril facing the Supreme Court comes less from partisan judges than from citizens who, encouraged by politicians, equate impartial justice with agreeable judicial outcomes.&#8221;
In April, reports surfaced that Senate and House Democrats were working on legislation that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-leaders-rise-to-condemn-dems-court-packing-plan">would add four</a> new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, Justice Breyer said that court packing would erode any and all trust in the judiciary.
“If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-supreme-court-justice-warns-on-court-packing-will-diminish-confidence-in-court-rule-of-law">Breyer said</a> in a speech to Harvard Law.
“The court’s decision in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore, is often referred to as an example of its favoritism of conservative causes,” he later added. “But the court did not hear or decide cases that affected the political disagreements arising out of the 2020 Trump v. Biden election. It did uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare, the health care program favored by liberals,” Breyer said in noting some of the things that the court has sided with liberals on. “It did re-affirm precedents that favored a woman’s right to an abortion. It did find unlawful certain immigration, census, and other orders, rules, or regulations, favored by a conservative president.”
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-leaders-rise-to-condemn-dems-court-packing-plan">‘Spit In The Face Of Judicial Independence’: GOP Leaders Rise To Condemn Dems’ Court Packing Plan</a>

US-SUPREME-COURT

Liberal Justice Breyer To Bash Court Packing In Upcoming Book

This month, Democrats in both chambers of Congress have made clear their intention of expanding the Supreme Court, with the clear intention of swinging the Court&#8217;s sphere of influence away from conservatives and back towards the Left. But while Democrats increasingly support such a proposal, it wasn&#8217;t long ago that leaders in the party strongly opposed the idea.
Here are 14 times Democrats said court-packing was an idea they could not get behind.
1. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) warned that Congress needed to be &#8220;very, very careful&#8221; when considering court packing.
“I think it’s — we should be very, very careful in doing so. I have no problem with the commission, but I think that the commission is going to come back and disappoint a lot of people because I think they’re going to come back and say, we should just kind of leave it alone,”<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harry-reid-warns-biden-against-packing-supreme-court-we-better-be-very-very-careful"> The Daily Wire</a> reported. “I think it would be inappropriate at this time after that long history we’ve had in the country [to] have term limits for judges. I think that we better be very, very careful in saying that we need to expand the Supreme Court. I think we better be very, very, careful.”
2. Earlier this month, Justice Stephen Breyer warned about the politics of court-packing.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-supreme-court-justice-warns-on-court-packing-will-diminish-confidence-in-court-rule-of-law">The Daily Wire</a> reported, Breyer explained the Court’s power is dependent on “a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics. Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.&#8221;
3. In early 2020, then-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) warned that court-packing is a way of slapping a &#8220;band-aid&#8221; on a problem, not fixing it.
&#8220;Simply expanding the numbers [sic] of Supreme Court justices that we have doesn&#8217;t solve the problem,&#8221; Gabbard<a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1226284005043122177?s=20"> told a crowd</a>. &#8220;I&#8217;m a big believer in actually understanding the problem we&#8217;re trying to solve first so that we can come up with a solution that deals with it and not just put a band-aid on it or throw something out there that not only doesn&#8217;t solve the problem but could actually end up making it worse.&#8221;
4. Joe Biden said in 2020 that court-packing would be &#8220;damaging&#8221; to our society.
He said he did not favor &#8220;structural changes,&#8221; like eliminating the filibuster and packing the Court.
&#8220;That structural change requires Constitutional amendments. It raises more problems that are damaging than the problem that exists,&#8221; he told <a href="https://grabien.com/getmedia.php?id=1046597&amp;key=a60fb7b355154beb024c517bffc214f3">The Weekly</a>. &#8220;The reason [the Founding Fathers] gave judges a lifetime tenure, you know why.&#8221;
5. In a 2020 presidential campaign event, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said court-packing &#8220;is not the ultimate solution.&#8221;
&#8220;In terms of the Supreme Court, here is my concern about expanding the numbers of the Supreme Court, say if the Democrats are in the position to do that. What my worry is that the next time the Republicans are in power they will do the same thing,&#8221; Sanders<a href="https://grabien.com/getmedia.php?id=1046615&amp;key=803e3c8f6d58a994abb50742f182981a"> explained</a>. &#8220;So I think that is not the ultimate solution.&#8221;
6. During a segment on &#8220;Real Time With Bill Maher” in 2019, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) expressed concern over the idea of court-packing. 
&#8220;Where does it stop?&#8221; Tester<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssSecquxZ0U"> asked.</a> &#8220;So we go from nine to 15? And next to 27 and so on?&#8221;
7. In 2019, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said he opposes court-packing because it would create &#8220;an arms race&#8221; between the two political parties.
&#8220;I am not, I do not think expanding the Supreme Court makes sense, and I&#8217;ll tell you why: because of history. I admire so greatly Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but he tried it and it backfired in so many ways. I think there are some things we have to say are set, and then we have to work politically to make the changes we need,&#8221; de Blasio told<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/supreme-court-democratic-candidates.html?mtrref=www.washingtonpost.com&amp;assetType=REGIWALL#deblasio"> The New York Times</a>. &#8220;I think at this point in history, the best way to change America is through the electoral process, and that will very rapidly change our judiciary.&#8221;
&#8220;It will take longer with the Supreme Court but I worry that we end up in a kind of arms race if one administration increases the size of the Court for their ends and then another party comes into power and increases it again,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I don&#8217;t find that good for the country.&#8221;
8. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in 2019 that she opposed packing the Court as a &#8220;solution&#8221; to what she saw as a &#8220;temporary situation.&#8221;
&#8220;I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court. His plan was for every justice who stays on the Court past the age of 70, the president would have authority to nominate another justice. If that plan had been effective, the Court&#8217;s number would have swelled immediately from nine to 15 and the president would have six appointments to make,&#8221; she explained during an interview with<a href="https://twitter.com/TCPigott/status/1382529042906222594?s=20"> NPR</a>.
&#8220;&#8230; if anything, it would make the Court appear partisan, it would be that, one side saying, &#8216;When we&#8217;re in power, we&#8217;re going to enlarge the number of judges so we have more people who vote the way we want them to,&#8221; RBG said. &#8220;So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation.&#8221;
9. During a debate in 2019, Joe Biden said he wasn&#8217;t &#8220;into court-packing.&#8221;
&#8220;I would not get into court-packing. We had three justices, next time around we lose control, they add three justices,&#8221; Biden <a href="https://grabien.com/getmedia.php?id=1046295&amp;key=5400d59614e5f0b121bfb88cc467e216">explained</a>. &#8220;We begin to lose any credibility the Court has at all.&#8221;
10. In 2019, Former Congressman John Delaney (D-MD) said there are &#8220;some norms&#8221; that need to be &#8220;respected&#8221; and one of those is the make up of the Supreme Court.
&#8220;If we pack the court, guess what happens when Republicans are in control? They pack the court,&#8221; Delaney told<a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/436880-delaney-warns-against-court-packing-gop-will-pack-the-courts-when-theyre-in"> The Hill TV.</a> &#8220;I kind of think these norms actually matter. Right? I think our society and the success of this extraordinary country was based on this notion that there was some respect for basic norms. Court packing goes against that, and it just leads you down this terrible path where each side then does it, and where does it end?”
11. Then-Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) disagreed with calls to pack the Court in 2018.
“Seventy-five years ago, we went through this,” Durbin said at the time, according to the<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/what-do-senate-democrats-think-about-packing-the-supreme-court"> Washington Examiner.</a> “And I think the Congress was correct in stopping this popular president named Franklin Roosevelt from that idea.”
12. In 2018, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) worried about &#8220;tinkering&#8221; with the Court.
“We have a long tradition of nine jurists, and we should be very sober before we start tinkering with things like that,&#8221; Booker said about his colleagues&#8217; proposals, the<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/what-do-senate-democrats-think-about-packing-the-supreme-court"> Washington Examiner</a> reported.
13. In 2005, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-VT) said President Roosevelt&#8217;s attempt to pack the Court was a &#8220;power grab&#8221; based on corruption.
&#8220;The Senate again stood firm in &#8217;37 in the court-packing attempt&#8230; Roosevelt had just come off a landslide victory over Alf Landon. He had a Congress made up of solid New Dealers but the nine old men of the Court were thwarting his agenda. In this environment Roosevelt — and remember this old addage about &#8216;power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely&#8217; — corrupted by power in my view, unveiled his court-packing plan,&#8221; Biden<a href="https://grabien.com/getmedia.php?id=1046269&amp;key=17b09022974e7dbc1abc7e64a7a835ea"> recounted.</a> &#8220;He wanted to increase the number of justices to 15, allowing himself to nominate those additional judges.&#8221;
&#8220;It took an act of courage on the part of his own party, institutionally, to stand up against this power grab,&#8221; the senator said. He reminded his colleagues that those on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time Roosevelt was in power were New Dealers who supported the president&#8217;s agenda. Despite that, they disagreed with packing the Court.
Biden said history will look on the Senate to conclude whether they were &#8220;statesman&#8221; who put the institution of the Supreme Court &#8220;above party and politics&#8221; or as &#8220;politicians bending to the will of the executive and to political expediency.
14. In 1983, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-VT) said it was a &#8220;bonehead&#8221; idea for President Roosevelt to attempt to pack the Court.
&#8220;President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the Court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct,&#8221; Biden said at the time, according to<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-once-called-court-packing-bonehead-idea-terrible-terrible-mistake-1583763"> Newsweek</a>. &#8220;But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress included in my view—in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.&#8221;
What suddenly changed their take on the Court? Is it the fact that it&#8217;s more conservative leaning? Or is it that &#8220;Orange Man Bad&#8221; had three nominations confirmed? Maybe it&#8217;s the fact that President Trump replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — the feminist titan — with Justice Amy Coney Barrett?
Either way, the Democrats current position is, in many ways, a complete 180 from what they have said in the past. Packing the Court is still a dangerous precedent that would cause a never-ending cycle of expansion. The Constitution doesn&#8217;t limit how many justices sit on the Supreme Court, meaning additions could, theoretically, take place for all eternity, unless Congress passes a constitutional amendment solidifying the number of justices.
Beth Baumann is a Political Reporter and Editor at The Daily Wire. Follow her on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/eb454">@eb454</a>.

19th Annual HRC National Dinner

14 Times Democrats Admitted Court-Packing Is A Terrible Idea

Bernie Sanders

Bill Maher

According to reports, President Biden is considering the possibility of expanding the Supreme Court.
The notion of “court packing” — adding more Justices to erase the conservative Supreme Court majority established by former President Trump — has been floated by Democratic leadership since the 2020 election cycle. Many left-wing political figures — including Democratic Sen. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/joe-manchin-supreme-court-packing-cnntv/index.html">Joe Manchin</a> (D-WV) and deceased Justice <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/ginsburg-expand-supreme-court-1428426">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> herself — staunchly opposed such proposals.
Nevertheless, the White House announced last Friday that Biden signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/09/president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-creating-the-presidential-commission-on-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states/">executive order</a> forming a commission composed of a “bipartisan” group of experts on the “court reform debate.” The commission — staffed largely by constitutional revisionist law professors — will examine the “length of service and turnover of justices on the Court,” as well as the “membership and size of the Court.”
Although President Biden gave the commission 180 days to complete its report, some Democratic politicians are already readying their attempts at changing the Supreme Court’s composition.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-democrats-introducing-legislation-to-pack-supreme-court-with-4-new-justices-report-says">The Intercept</a> reported, Congressional Democrats are planning to unveil legislation that would “add four seats to the high court, bringing the total to 13, from the current 9.” The bill is sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), and Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), as well as Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).
The Democrats’ attempts at court packing are by no means new in American history. During politically tumultuous eras, officials on both sides of the aisle have tampered with the Supreme Court&#8217;s composition in order to enact their agendas.
New Seats
The Supreme Court did not always have nine seats. In fact, it started with six.
Keith Whittington — a political science professor at Princeton University, as well as a member of Biden’s Supreme Court commission who appears to disagree with modern-day court packing — wrote in <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/why-supreme-court-has-nine-justices-opinion-1540685">Newsweek</a> that the first Congress created a Supreme Court with six total Justices. President George Washington was able to appoint every Justice on the Supreme Court under the <a href="https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/george-washington-and-the-supreme-court/">Judiciary Act of 1789</a>, as well as four more Justices throughout his tenure.
For the next century, Justices spent much of their time “riding circuit” — traveling to hear cases across the United States. More seats were added to the Supreme Court as the Justices’ responsibilities increased, alongside westward expansion. Circuit lines were redrawn, and three new Justices were appointed after Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio joined the union.
As Whittington explains, politics were “unavoidably involved in the timing of the creation of the new seats.” However, “the expansion of the Court from six to nine justices responded to a widely recognized increase in the judicial workload.” The new states — as well as the Justices themselves — “had been lobbying for the new seats for years before the stars finally aligned in Congress.”
Circuit riding was “significantly reduced” in 1869 and eliminated in 1911.
Post-Civil War Reconstruction
After the Civil War, the Supreme Court was caught in the crossfire of a feud between President Andrew Johnson and a deeply Republican Congress.
As Kyle Sammin wrote for <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2016/10/31/congress-refused-confirm-supreme-court-justices-can/">The Federalist</a> in 2016, Republicans were “initially optimistic that Johnson would work with them to ensure their vision of a new, more equal order in the South, but he quickly dashed their hopes.” Johnson — a Republican who had identified with the Democratic Party until his ascension to the Presidency — “pardoned almost all of the former rebels and sought to readmit the seceded states with no changes to their legal and political makeup other than abolishing slavery, which was mandated by the Thirteenth Amendment.”
As Southern states began restricting former slaves’ civil rights, Republicans passed their own reconstruction plan and repeatedly overrode President Johnson’s vetoes.
Congressional Republicans proposed and passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, which required that “no vacancy in the office of the office of associate justice of the Supreme Court shall be filled by appointment until the number of associate justices shall be reduced to six.” Johnson was thereby unable to appoint more Supreme Court Justices. As late historian Stanley Kutler <a href="https://www-jstor-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/stable/2204715?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">wrote</a> in 1966, Johnson’s biographers viewed the legislation as “part of the congressional attack upon the ‘foundations’ of the Supreme Court.”
Whittington says that “as soon as Johnson left office, Congress brought the Court back up to nine justices, where it has remained ever since.”
FDR
When Republicans lost control of the federal government during the Great Depression, the question of court packing was again raised — this time, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a handful of his Democratic allies.
The Supreme Court had been a terror to Roosevelt’s efforts to pass his New Deal agenda. As <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan">History</a> explains, Justices “had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.”
Whittington explains that although Roosevelt did not have the opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during his first term, he “declined to endorse court-packing and refused to even talk about the courts as he cruised to reelection in 1936.”
However, soon after he won a second term, Roosevelt “revealed a shocking plan to ‘reorganize’ the federal judiciary.”
In 1937, according to History, Roosevelt issued a proposal &#8220;to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70.” For Justices refusing to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed. 
Although the Senate was controlled by Democrats, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a scathing retort to Roosevelt’s agenda.
“This is the first time in the history of our country that a proposal to alter the decisions of the court by enlarging its personnel has been so boldly made,” they wrote. “Let us now set a salutary precedent that will never be violated.”
“Let us of the Seventy-fifth Congress, in words that will never be disregarded by any succeeding Congress, declare that we would rather have an independent Court, a fearless Court, a Court that will dare to announce its honest opinions in what it believes to be the defense of the liberties of the people, than a Court that, out of fear or sense of obligation to the appointing power, or factional passion, approves any measure we may enact,” they proclaimed. “We are not the judges of the judges. We are not above the Constitution.”
The plan — which effectively would have granted Roosevelt the majority in a fifteen-member Supreme Court — was never enacted. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act, which remain lasting legacies of the Roosevelt presidency, as constitutional.
“Since then, even when the Court has issued decisions that obstructed a president&#8217;s political agenda, court-packing was understood to be beyond the pale,” concluded Whittington. “Court-packing would be an announcement that politicians are above the law, and few politicians have been so bold as to attempt to grasp that mantle.”
Time will tell whether Biden — who <a href="https://www.usatodaysun.com/biden-is-using-fdr-as-his-role-model-hes-made-the-no-drama-obama-era-look-wild/">hung</a> a portrait of Roosevelt above the fireplace in the Oval Office — will succeed in packing the Supreme Court.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Pose For Official Group Portrait

A Look Back On ‘Court Packing’ Attempts in U.S. History

Biden Administration

SCOTUS

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in a press conference Thursday that while she will not rule out adding members to the Supreme Court in the future, she will not bring a proposed bill to expand the Court to the floor for a vote.
Asked whether she planned to bring the bill, reportedly being drafted by House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and others, to the floor for a vote, Pelosi answered, “No.&#8221;
She later clarified, however, that she has “no plans” to bring the current bill to the floor, but that she “doesn’t know if that’s a good idea or bad idea&#8221; to expand the court from 9 to 13 members, and that future a plan to expand the court is “not out of the question.&#8221;
&#8220;No. I support the president&#8217;s commission to study such a proposal, but frankly, I&#8217;m not — right now, we&#8217;re back, our members, our committees are working. We&#8217;re putting together the infrastructure bill and the rest,&#8221; Pelosi said. &#8220;I don&#8217;t know if that&#8217;s a good idea or a bad idea. I think it&#8217;s an idea that should be considered and I think the president&#8217;s taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It&#8217;s a big step.&#8221;
Pelosi then suggested that packing the court is a legitimate way to break gridlock if Congress is faced with certain &#8220;challenges.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s not out of the question. It has been done before in the history of our country a long time ago. And the growth of our country, the size of our country, the growth of our challenges in terms of the economy, etc., might necessitate such a thing,&#8221; she added.
The Supreme Court has <a href="https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution#:~:text=Somodevilla%2FGetty%20Images-,The%20Constitution%20doesn't%20stipulate%20how%20many%20justices%20should%20serve,appointed%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court.&amp;text=When%20George%20Washington%20signed%20the,Supreme%20Court%20justices%20at%20six.">had exactly 9 justices since 1869</a>. Prior to that, the number fluctuated from 6, at the time of President George Washington, to 5, to prevent then-President Thomas Jefferson from appointing a new justice to the Court, to 10 during President Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s tenure. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to &#8220;pack&#8221; the court by adding 6 judges in the 1930s, but the Senate killed his hopes, shooting down the proposal 70 votes to 20.
The Court, it appears, has never been expanded to meet the &#8220;growth&#8221; of the country or because of economic &#8220;challenges,&#8221; despite Pelosi&#8217;s suggestion.
Democrats have toyed with the idea of &#8220;packing&#8221; the court since President Donald Trump appointed now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The bill unveiled earlier this week would have added four justices, all, it seems, appointed by President Joe Biden.
The bill is &#8220;reportedly being led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler of New York, Subcommittee Chair Hank Johnson of Georgia, and Rep. Mondaire Jones of New York in the House, while Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is spearheading the bill in the Senate,&#8221; a<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-plan-to-introduce-court-packing-bill-per-report-2021-4">ccording to Business Insider</a>.
In his first comments confirming the effort, Nadler said that the effort was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-nadler-were-not-packing-the-court-were-unpacking-it">not designed to &#8220;pack&#8221; the court but to &#8220;unpack&#8221; it</a>.
&#8220;We&#8217;re not packing the Supreme Court, we&#8217;re unpacking it,&#8221; he said.

A09CB11E-7481-4A63-ADA1-0FD72E258151_1_201_a

Pelosi Will Not Bring Supreme Court Expansion Bill To A Vote But Won’t Rule Out Court-Packing

Nancy Pelosi

After <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-democrats-introducing-legislation-to-pack-supreme-court-with-4-new-justices-report-says/">news broke on Wednesday</a> that House and Senate Democrats were reportedly preparing to introduce legislation to pack the Supreme Court with four new justices, GOP leaders immediately rose to condemn the idea.
Senator Mike Lee of Utah, constitutional scholar and author of “Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America&#8217;s Founding Document,” stated, “Packing the court is an act of arrogant lawlessness. Those behind this effort spit in the face of judicial independence.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Packing the court is an act of arrogant lawlessness. Those behind this effort spit in the face of judicial independence.
&mdash; Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1382531938880081920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas tweeted succinctly, “Packing the Supreme Court would destroy the Supreme Court. The Democrats will do anything for power.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Packing the Supreme Court would destroy the Supreme Court. 
The Democrats will do anything for power.
&mdash; Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1382491373753008130?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Mark Meadows, former representative from North Carolina and chair of the Freedom Caucus who also served as former President Trump’s Chief of Staff between 2020 to 2021, stated: “The moderate left is gone. This is who they are now. Open borders. Outlawing voter ID. Free healthcare for illegal migrants. And now court packing. This should be roundly rejected.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The moderate left is gone. 
This is who they are now. Open borders. Outlawing voter ID. Free healthcare for illegal migrants. And now court packing.
This should be roundly rejected. <a href="https://t.co/Y3qtlUzB8b">https://t.co/Y3qtlUzB8b</a>
&mdash; Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkMeadows/status/1382483013167104002?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 14, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska asserted, “This progressive court packing commission is going nowhere fast. President Biden knows that he doesn&#8217;t even have the votes in his own party to pack the court; he knows that court packing is a non-starter with the American people; and he knows that this commission&#8217;s report is just going to be a taxpayer-funded door stopper. What the president doesn&#8217;t have is the courage to come out and flatly tell the radical left that he&#8217;s not going to pack the Supreme Court.”
Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee added, “Joe Biden and the radical left will destroy our institutions to seize power. This means eradicating the electoral college and the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court.”
Biden appears to have radically changed his position since 1983, when during a debate over whether Congress should permit President Ronald Reagan to replace members of the Commission on Civil Rights, he opposed the commissioners Reagan had nominated because he thought the Commission’s image would be delegitimized, and likened it to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court. He stated:
<blockquote>President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body — including the Congress in my view — the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
1983: Sen. <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> calls FDR&#39;s attempt to pack the Supreme Court a &quot;bonehead idea.&quot;
&quot;It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question there for an entire decade the independence of THE most significant body&#8230; in this country.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/MEPu0fMRG4">pic.twitter.com/MEPu0fMRG4</a>
&mdash; Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) <a href="https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1380592689012383744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
After winning reelection in 1936, Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would permit the president to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months. Even Roosevelt’s vice-president, John Nance Garner, opposed the plan and actually rallied the opposition to it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee in 1937, which was controlled by Democrats, condemned Roosevelt’s plan as “a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle &#8230; without precedent or justification.”
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-political-power-grab-biden-creates-commission-to-study-packing-the-supreme-court">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Court packing is so toxic that even socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) does not support it and has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders/u-s-senator-bernie-sanders-against-increasing-number-of-supreme-court-justices-idUSKCN1RD3AL">warned</a> that if Democrats do it then “the next time the Republicans are in power they will do the same thing.”</blockquote>
Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell <a href="https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-on-court-packing-commission-disdain-for-judicial-independence-">blasted the idea</a> after Biden’s White House announced it was creating a commission to study packing the Supreme Court. McConnell said:
<blockquote>Today’s announcement is a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary and yet another sign of the Far Left’s influence over the Biden Administration. Rational observers know well there is nothing about the structure or operation of the judicial branch that requires ‘study.’  Constitutional scholars and the justices themselves have repeatedly affirmed the position of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘nine seems to be a good number.’ Justice Breyer said just this week that ‘structural alteration’ like court packing would mean ‘eroding’ the public’s trust in the judiciary. And by overwhelming margins, the American people agree. &#8230;
[A]nyone who was surprised by the creation of a commission on packing the Supreme Court simply hasn’t been paying attention. This faux-academic study of a nonexistent problem fits squarely within liberals’ years-long campaign to politicize the Court, intimidate its members, and subvert its independence. … this is just another example of the liberal preference for attacking norms and institutions, rather than working within them. When Democrats lose a floor vote, it’s time to change Senate rules. When they lose a presidential election, it’s time to abolish the Electoral College. And when activists’ cases fall flat against the rule of law, it’s time to ignore Justices Ginsburg and Breyer and pack the Supreme Court.</blockquote>

US-POLITICS-STATE OF THE UNION-OBAMA

‘Spit In The Face Of Judicial Independence’: GOP Leaders Rise To Condemn Dems’ Court Packing Plan

Menu