Posted on 06/30/2026 8:56:25 PM PDT by algore
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) is alarmed that Democrats might expand the membership of the Supreme Court
It is true that leading Democrats, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, have welcomed “ideas, for example, that are about Supreme Court reform, including the notion of expanding the court.” But it is wrong to call it court-packing. In fact, the Supreme Court has already been strategically stacked by President Trump and his Senate allies, entrenching an illegitimate conservative supermajority.
Adding four seats under the next Democratic trifecta would actually be unpacking the court.
After Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb 13. 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him, under Article II of the Constitution.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) deployed Senate rules so that Garland did not even get a committee hearing
Scalia’s seat remained empty, leaving an eight-member court for more than a year. Trump’s nominee to replace him, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed on April 7, 2017.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg then died on Sept. 18, 2020, when absentee voting was already underway for the November presidential election. This time, there was no talk from McConnell or any other Republican about waiting for the next president. Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination was rushed through in near-record time. She was confirmed on Oct. 26 and sworn in the following day. It was barely a week before Joe Biden would be elected president.
That is what court packing really looks like.
The packed right-wing supermajority brought the most extensive retraction of individual and democratic rights since the end of the Jim Crow era, with the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the immunization of Trump for crimes committed in office, the authorization of relentless partisan gerrymanders and most recently the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Barf Alert
“what is her ideology?”
I don’t think she has one, except to be accepted by other elitists. She’s an AWFUL, and designed her oh-so-diverse family to announce her liberalism by virtue signaling. It was the fad then, e.g., Angelina Jolie, Madonna, and others. (She could’ve adopted white American children whom also need parents.)
“I sent PDJT a message last week that he should expand the Supreme Court just to head off the Dims from doing it!”
Thank you! I’ve been saying this for a few months. Just do it and get the upper hand. Of course, if Thune is in his current position it’ll never happen; his only mandate — issued by McConnell — is to thwart Trump.
Oh, and possibly Dobbs/Roe's repeal, too.
Stick with me.
The Lifeguard of Chappaquiddick is largely responsible for the destruction of Robert Bork's SCOTUS candidacy. That slot was occupied by Justice Anthony Kennedy ultimately.
Justice Kennedy was a squish. But he DID side with the majority in Heller. That's big.
Ah, but what if Bork hadn't been Borked. Well...the truth is... Bork MAY have voted against Heller.
In Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork referred to the language of the Second Amendment as “somewhat ambiguous[].” In the same passage, he stated that “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government.”[4] While it is clear that Bork was opposed to gun control on policy grounds, it is not clear that he agreed that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right. In fact, Bork’s skepticism regarding the gun lobby’s advocacy of individual rights under the Second Amendment (shared by former Chief Justice Warren Burger) may have been the reason the National Rifle Association chose to remain neutral during Bork’s 1987 confirmation hearings. Moreover, Bork might have been reluctant to overrule (or distinguish into irrelevance) the arguably contrary precedent in United States v. Miller[5], which is what the majority in Heller did. It appears that Bork construed Miller the same way Justice Stevens’ dissent in Heller did: as ruling that the Second Amendment confers a collective, not an individual, right. The way he put it in Slouching Towards Gomorrah (12 years before Heller) was: “The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm.”
By blocking Bork and paving the way for Kennedy, Uncle Ted very possibly helped save the legality of the Individual Model.
It gets better.
Bork died in 2012 during Obama. That would have guaranteeing a leftist nut-job replacing Bork, tipping the scales to a 5-4 liberal SCOTUS majority until Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg died in 2020. That is a LOT of bad rulings.
It also means no 6-3 margin for Dobbs, Bruen, or EPA.
So Ted, you magnificent liberal, wherever you are, thank you for being a friend of the NRA and patriotic Americans.
Right. Trump/Republicans exploited the SCOTUS openings. All the nominees were confirmed because Dirty Harry killed the filibuster for judges. Bootlick Garlick didn’t get a vote under the Biden rule of no SCOTUS confirmations during an election year. Not to mention Obama had Scalia murdered. The timing was just too perfect.
Its court packing. It was in the 1930s when FDR tried to gain support for it and it would be now. The SCOTUS has never had more than 9 Justices. There is nothing illegitimate about the current court. The current composition is just different than the radical far left Warren and Burger courts which invented rulings out of thin air to suit their hard left politics. What this court has been doing is rolling back some of those excesses. Its hardly surprising far left the Hill would be butt hurt about it.
Now for the next lie, Trump is not immune for crimes committed in office. Former presidents are immune for actions that are within their core constitutional powers - not for private acts. The SCOTUS only had to come to this ruling because of corrupt illegitimate Democrat lawfare against Trump (along with many of Trump's allies and supporters).
The next hilarious pile of BS is "the authorization of relentless partisan gerrymanders"...you mean like New England's been doing for over 30 years to favor Democrats? 22 congressional seats, in a region that votes about 40% Republican results in a grand total of ZERO seats for Republicans. How about Illinois where 43.5% voted for Trump but Republicans hold only 17.5% of Congressional seats? California which voted 38% for Trump but where Republicans hold only 17.5% of Congressional seats - and California has voted to gerrymander even harder than that. Did you mean gerrymandering like that? No. You obviously think all of that is just fine.
As for the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act". You mean allowing Southern states the right/power to gerrymander exactly the same way that New England and other Blue states do? Hey, its only wrong when the other side does it, right? Its just fine when your side does it.
The author is either willfully clueless or lying. McConnell said there was no precedent for a majority party in opposition to the party of the President approving a Supreme Court justice in an election year. That was beyond clear, said over and over again each and every time. But this author claims the same scenario existed when Barrett was confirmed. Just plain false.
Even more stupid nonsense. Just embarrassing.
Yep. Republicans controlled the Senate when ACB was nominated. Each party does not like confirming SCOTUS nominees for the opposition party and does not do so in an election year when they control the Senate. That goes back well over a century. Democrats can scream and cry about it all they like but the record shows they do the exact same thing when the roles are reversed.
Expanding the Supreme Court isn’t court packing
_________________________________
The sky isn’t blue either!!
So why doesn’t Andy and friends get a jump on it and start an effort to pack it NOW? The GOP is just going to sit around waiting to be attacked (as usual)? Who says that only RATs can pack it? It’s time to get the upper hand and stop being cucks.
You’re 💯% right about that!
Re: “ Justice Antonin Scalia died “
Murdered? Possibly?
Goose meet Gander.
The GOP has to be prepared for the Democrats, and now the communists, to change the rules the next time they are in charge. They need to start communicating what will happen and how they will offset it.
It should start with every GOP candidate for president announcing they will block any legislation that includes the crap discussed in this article. If this leads to a stalemate…so be it.
FDR could not be reached for comment
In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled the Miller decision was consistent with Heller.
It is not hard to do so. Miller is not a well written decision, but it is more clear on the Second Amendment applying to individuals than in creating the charade it only applies to state organized militias.
“In fact, the Supreme Court has already been strategically stacked by President Trump and his Senate allies, entrenching an illegitimate conservative supermajority.”
Stacked, my a$$. Vacancies came available. If RBG hadn’t been so intent on coronating Hillary she could have been replaced by Barry with a loyal foot soldier. What was Trump to do? Choose a liberal? I’m sure a dem president would have made more equitable choices. Lol
Adding justices is iffy. Add three more solid conservatives and one or two of them will lean left then fall left. Add a female solid and she will almost certainly lean left or follow whatever the Chief Justice does. Maggie Thatcher was a solitary. Women ultimately want all the children to play nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.