Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $19,106
Woo hoo!! And the first 21% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: courtpacking

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Liberal Professors Launch Campaign To Pack Supreme Court After Kavanaugh Confirmation

    10/16/2018 7:40:01 PM PDT · by blam · 54 replies
    Fox News ^ | 10-16-2018 | Gregg Re
    Less than a month after the confirmation of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh entrenched a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, leading law professors are urging Democrats to expand the size of all of the nation's federal courts and pack them with liberals. Far-left Harvard professors Mark Tushnet and Laurence Tribe are lending their support to the so-called "1.20.21 Project," which was launched by political science professor Aaron Belkin on Wednesday to counter "Republican obstruction, theft and procedural abuse" of the federal judiciary. That rhetoric reflects the professors' apparent surprise after Democrats lost the 2016 presidential election, which they had...
  • Packing the Court again

    10/15/2018 7:57:02 PM PDT · by TBP · 22 replies
    Washington Times ^ | October 14, 2018 | Thomas C. Stewart
    Faced with a 5-4 conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, some liberal Democrats want to pack the court to reverse the balance. Once the Democrats regain control of the White House and the Senate, so the argument goes, the new Democratic president could create enough new seats on the Supreme Court to ensure a liberal majority. The last time the Democrats tried that was in 1937. President Franklin Roosevelt had just been re-elected by the largest majority in American history. He carried all but two states, Maine and Vermont, and racked up unprecedented Democratic majorities in the Senate and...
  • Hey Democrats, Fighting Fair Is for Suckers

    07/05/2018 10:32:18 AM PDT · by DeweyCA · 4 replies ^ | 7-5-18
    "Faris’ response to the Normalcy program is that there is no value in conserving a burning house. The endangered state of American liberal democracy, he argues, calls for emergency steps from Democrats and the left. They should take advantage of legal and constitutional silences to “transform American politics in a lasting progressive direction,” Faris writes. “Doing so will require party leaders to pursue policy changes that will be ridiculed by their opponents as outrageous affronts to democratic decency and received by their own voters with puzzlement or even shock. They need to do it anyway.” The list of those changes...
  • How the Democrats Could Thwart Trump’s Supreme Court Takeover (These people are pure pond scum)

    05/12/2018 6:27:19 PM PDT · by Beave Meister · 42 replies
    the Daily Beast ^ | 5/11/2018 | DAVID FARIS
    When it comes to filling vacancies on the Supreme Court and lower courts, the Democrats have played nice for far too long. If you’re a Democratic partisan, the name Merrick Garland probably still makes your blood boil. And it should. As the Supreme Court prepares to issue verdict after verdict that will further entrench conservative power in the United States, the far-reaching effects of Mitch McConnell’s darkly clever Garland hold-up will only become more shocking and problematic. The most galling fact is this: in any sane political system, conservatives would be in the minority, both on the Supreme Court and...
  • The Supreme Court Will Soon Decide: Uphold The Contract Clause Or Let It Die?

    03/13/2018 10:25:57 AM PDT · by reaganaut1 · 30 replies
    Forbes ^ | March 13, 2018 | George Leef
    In the first century or so of our national existence, one of the Constitution’s provisions that was most often at issue was the Contract Clause. But following New Deal era decisions that eviscerated it, hardly any cases have since centered on it. The clause has been so forgotten that few Americans even know it’s there, in Article I, Section 10, reading, “No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” The Constitution’s drafters had good reason to include that language, meant to assure people that contracts would be inviolate. During the years under the Articles of Confederation, the...
  • End Of Filibuster Brings First Of Many Radical Judges

    12/10/2013 4:39:30 PM PST · by jazusamo · 14 replies ^ | December 10, 2013 | IBD Editorial
    Nuclear Option: The first spoil of Harry Reid's shredding of the Senate's historic filibuster rules has been confirmed to the D.C. Circuit. Patricia Millett is another radical activist masquerading as judge. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1990, now-Vice President Joseph Biden threw a fit after it was clear David Souter was going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, warning the first Bush administration that no more "stealth" nominees would be getting through. Liberals threw an even bigger fit the next year when Clarence Thomas told Biden's committee he had no "personal opinion on the outcome in...
  • Senate confirms first Obama's ‘post-nuclear’ nominee in 56-38 vote

    12/10/2013 8:57:39 AM PST · by markomalley · 81 replies
    The Hill ^ | 12/10/2013
    The Senate voted 56-38 Tuesday to confirm Patricia Millett to the D.C. Circuit Court, making her the first nominee of President Obama’s to clear the Senate since Democrats unilaterally changed the rules in a vote last month. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with Democrats. The rule change means only 51 votes are needed to end a filibuster on nominations below the level of the Supreme Court. The move outraged Republicans, who said Democrats had severely undermined minority rights in the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the “nuclear option” to make the change. It allows the...
  • Vanity: Time to Increase Number of Supreme Court Justices

    07/05/2012 10:03:08 AM PDT · by privatedrive · 72 replies
    7/5/12 | privatedrive
    The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court; that decision is left to Congress. I submit that now is the time to increase that number to at least 15. Clearly the current makeup of the SC concentrates too much power to one individual (formerly Kennedy, now Roberts). In 1861, Congress passed a law fixing the number of SC Justices at 9. The original U.S. Supreme Court had only six Justices; that number has changed several times over the years. 1.Judiciary Act of 1789: Court size 6 2.Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5 3.Repeal Act...
  • Obama should expand court

    03/02/2010 3:42:43 AM PST · by TornadoAlley3 · 91 replies · 2,655+ views ^ | 03/01/10 | Stan Isaacs
    This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. It shrank to five in 1801. It expanded to seven in 1807. It grew to nine in 1837 and 10 in 1863. It fell back to seven in 1866. It returned to nine in 1869 and has remained at that number since. Political issues accounted for the changes. The Federalists reduced the number to five, hoping to deprive Thomas Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming...
  • Law Profs, Former Judges, Attorneys Urge Major Reforms for Supreme Court (Barry to Pack the Court)

    02/12/2009 6:55:32 AM PST · by frithguild · 30 replies · 1,073+ views
    National; Law Journal ^ | February 12, 2009 | Marcia Coyle
    A group of 33 law professors, former state supreme court justices and practitioners are urging the attorney general and the heads of the Senate and House judiciary committees to consider four changes in the operation of the U.S. Supreme Court, including regular appointment of justices and the involvement of appellate judges in the selection of cases to be decided on the merits. The group sent the proposals in draft legislative form and noted that all of its members do not support all of the proposals, but are "unanimous" that it is time for Congress to reconsider the law applicable to...
  • Obama Promises Supreme Court That Will Destroy Second Amendment (frmr NRA pres)

    11/03/2008 5:51:15 AM PST · by connell · 32 replies · 2,356+ views
    Modern Conservative ^ | Sandy Froman
    By Sandy Froman Senator Barack Obama says he will respect gun owners, but campaign talk is cheap. What gun owners must know before they vote is that Obama promises to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court that will eradicate the Second Amendment from the Constitution. On June 26, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held in a split 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment secures a right to keep and bear arms for private citizens, and struck down the D.C. law that banned all handguns and readily-usable firearms, even in your own home. That decision turned on a...
  • The Supreme Court and the Constitution (commentary from 1936)

    07/02/2005 1:23:29 PM PDT · by TheOtherOne · 7 replies · 722+ views
    The Supreme Court and the Constitution Robert E. Cushman, The Supreme Court and the Constitution (Public Affairs Pamphlet, No. 7, 1936) pp. 1-36. The average citizen has a very wholesome respect for the Constitution of the United States. His respect does not usually come from any clear or accurate knowledge of the document itself, but grows out of the belief that the Constitution sanctions those policies which he approves and forbids those which seem to him dangerous or oppressive. His reaction to the Supreme Court is similarly direct and forthright; its decisions are sound if he likes them and unsound...
  • Pack the Supreme Court (With nominees in the mold of Scalia and Thomas)

    01/31/2005 2:32:57 PM PST · by RWR8189 · 15 replies · 437+ views
    D.C. Bar ^ | January 31, 2005 | Bruce Fein
    President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork. Multiple vacancies will inescapably arise in his second term. Senate Republicans should vote the Senate filibuster rule as applied to thwart a floor vote for judicial nominees unconstitutional and unenforceable. Both measures are necessary to vindicate the Constitution according to its original meaning and to eclipse an airbrush artist interpretive approach embraced by a majority of sitting justices. Neither gambit would impair judicial independence, separation of powers, or appointment traditions. Furthermore, President Bush...
  • Brown Reconsidered

    01/27/2004 8:09:12 PM PST · by Theodore R. · 5 replies · 236+ views
    Joseph Sobran column ^ | 01-13-04 | Sobran, Joseph
    Brown Reconsidered January 13, 2004 Judicial review was originally proposed (most notably in Federalist No. 78) as a method of making sure legislatures didn’t pass unconstitutional laws. Today it has become a method of changing the very meaning of constitutions under the guise of interpreting them. The problem was highlighted this past November, when the supreme court of Massachusetts handed down the sensational ruling that the state’s constitution required that same-sex “marriage” be recognized in law. The court didn’t even bother citing any specific passage of the constitution that might be construed to mean this; obviously it couldn’t find one....
  • Court Voids a Bush Move on Energy

    01/14/2004 9:09:00 AM PST · by SunkenCiv · 7 replies · 369+ views
    The New York Times ^ | January 14, 2004 | Matthew L. Wald
    Should be titled, "Court acts illegally on energy": Court Voids a Bush Move on Energy by Matthew L. WaldJanuary 14, 2004The rule, which applies to central air-conditioners for houses, was one of several published by the Clinton administration during its last few days in office. It was effectively rescinded in a memorandum sent by Andrew H. Card Jr., chief of staff in the Bush White House, to the Energy Department, which formally acted in the early months of the new administration. Tuesday's decision, by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York,...