Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
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 ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
They act like it wasn’t liberal democrats who came up with the original idea to make sure liberal judges are selected and approved and conservative judges are anally probed to find some reason to reject.
Robert Bork, anyone?
It sure won’t be if a Republican president appoints them will it?
AConeheadB is but a handmaiden to traitor Roberts.
She rarely strays from being Roberts’ shadow.
[Has anybody ever seen Roberts cast his own shadow?]
Otherwise, what is her ideology?
Like you said, this is where John Roberts come in the picture.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” -commie JR
Totally unhinged from reality....
100 % grade A BS article
Well it works fine if you just allow the author to change the meaning of all of the key words.
It absolutely is, and you know the Democrats will do it when they get power back. Let’s do it first. Watch all the Democrats who have advocated this vote no.
"The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote.”
Around the same time, he said:
"There's no reason to mince words around here. We're not going to allow an up or down vote on Miguel Estrada"
Chuck Schumer 7/27/2007
The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stephens be replaced by another Roberts or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court.
It’s funny to see this writer talk about this conservative super majority, because we hear all the time on Free Republic, how Trump’s nominees to the court are too liberal.
And we can see some recent cases where Republican appointed justices joined the liberal justices appointed by Democrats to produce results the liberal side of our politics like.
“Otherwise, what is her ideology?”
Please please please don’t threaten my family again. I’ll behave, I promise.
That is her philosophy. The democrats got exactly what they wanted as this fool caves to their thuggery.
And that is why I will never again support a soccer mom appointee.
Amy Coney Sock Puppet, John Robert’s sock puppet.
Dems coined the word: “Borked”
Yes it is. Stop parsing words
I sent PDJT a message last week that he should expand the Supreme Court just to head off the Dims from doing it!
The only way I could approve an expansion of the court is if it were done according to the 1 appellate circuit, 1 justice rule, as was apparently done before the number was frozen at 9. And then, only 1 justice would be added per Presidential term, until the number reached 13 (the current number of circuits).
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.