Democrats planning to unveil bill that would add 4 justices to Supreme Court

[300 H and H]

​

Democrats planning to unveil bill that would add 4 justices to Supreme Court​

By Tamar Lapin and Carl Campanile
April 14, 2021 | 9:05pm | Updated
Enlarge Image

Senate and House Democrats are preparing to unveil legislation to increase the number of Supreme Court seats from nine to 13.Corbis via Getty Images

​

Democrats are preparing to unveil legislation that would add four seats to the US Supreme Court.
The bill, first reported by The Intercept, is expected to be introduced in both the House and Senate on Thursday.
It would up the number of seats on the high court to 13 from the current nine.
Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill, told The Wall Street Journal that adding justices “will shore up the public’s confidence in the court and its legitimacy in the public’s eyes.”
Also backing the measure are House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (NY-10th District) Subcommittee Chair Hank Johnson (GA-4th District), and freshman New York Rep. Mondaire Jones.
The sponsors will announce the proposal at a press conference Thursday morning on the steps of the court, where they will be joined by activists from liberal groups including Take Back The Court, which has advocated for increasing the number of justices.
“Our democracy is under assault, and the Supreme Court has dealt the sharpest blows. To restore power to the people, we must #ExpandTheCourt,” Jones wrote on Twitter.
Conservatives currently hold the majority on the bench after former President Donald Trump’s appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon.
Chief Justice John Roberts, associates justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh are seen in 2020.CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
It is believed Barrett — Trump’s third nomination to the court — will cement the conservative tilt for decades, prompting calls from Democrats to increase the number of justices, who have lifetime appointments.
President Biden on Friday signed an executive order creating a commission that would study the “pros and cons” of expanding the court.

SEE ALSO​

Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’​

But Markey said that, “We need more than a commission to restore integrity to the court.”
Republicans and legal purists decry the idea as “court-packing” and say it will undo the court’s historical insulation from politics.
Biden previously opposed adding seats.
Congress altered the number of justices on the court several times over the 19th Century from a low of five to a high of 10. The number was fixed at nine shortly after the Civil War.
In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt unsuccessfully sought to expand the court after conservative justices ruled against some of his New Deal policies.

Biden’s atrocious opening to packing the Supreme Court​

Democrats are preparing to unveil legislation that would add four seats to the US Supreme Court.
The bill, first reported by The Intercept, is expected to be introduced in both the House and Senate on Thursday.
It would up the number of seats on the high court to 13 from the current nine.
Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill, told The Wall Street Journal that adding justices “will shore up the public’s confidence in the court and its legitimacy in the public’s eyes.”
Also backing the measure are House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (NY-10th District) Subcommittee Chair Hank Johnson (GA-4th District), and freshman New York Rep. Mondaire Jones.
The sponsors will announce the proposal at a press conference Thursday morning on the steps of the court, where they will be joined by activists from liberal groups including Take Back The Court, which has advocated for increasing the number of justices.
“Our democracy is under assault, and the Supreme Court has dealt the sharpest blows. To restore power to the people, we must #ExpandTheCourt,” Jones wrote on Twitter.
Conservatives currently hold the majority on the bench after former President Donald Trump’s appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon.
Chief Justice John Roberts, associates justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh are seen in 2020.CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
It is believed Barrett — Trump’s third nomination to the court — will cement the conservative tilt for decades, prompting calls from Democrats to increase the number of justices, who have lifetime appointments.
President Biden on Friday signed an executive order creating a commission that would study the “pros and cons” of expanding the court.

SEE ALSO​

Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’​

But Markey said that, “We need more than a commission to restore integrity to the court.”
Republicans and legal purists decry the idea as “court-packing” and say it will undo the court’s historical insulation from politics.
Biden previously opposed adding seats.
Congress altered the number of justices on the court several times over the 19th Century from a low of five to a high of 10. The number was fixed at nine shortly after the Civil War.
In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt unsuccessfully sought to expand the court after conservative justices ruled against some of his New Deal policies.

 

[Roofgardener]

During the election, progressives referred to this as 'balancing the court', or somesuch. WE don't hear that phrase so much these days.

 

[Roofgardener]

Actually, there may be a logic to this ? As I dimly understand it, the figure of nine justices was originally based on the number of circuit courts ? This was initially nine, but it has since increased to 13 ? So your COULD argue that the court should be increased to 13 justices ?

 

[300 H and H]

Don't know... It has been 9 since civil war times.
Maybe the Dems want a civil war again? Sure seems like it.
This is pure partisan bull sh1t.
Lots of hate out there for anything Biden or Democratic party. Civil war is a possibility. If so, my money is on Republicans for the win.

 

[Roofgardener]

Jeez.. that's a bit extreme, isn't it ? Why on EARTH should the Dems want a civil war ?

 

[300 H and H]

They hate Trump and his supporters they stole and election form

We hate Democrats for this and so much more.

 

[Roofgardener]

Well, OK, but why would that inspire Democrats to want a civil war ?

 

[300 H and H]

Well, OK, but why would that inspire Democrats to want a civil war ?

When Trump wins in 2024 I will ask you that question.
Dems are currently in control and are ramming through laws that anger the right very much. They did so by stealing an election. More than enough proof for that not to be true. Censorship is now the Democrats tool, a long with a very partisan media. The two together are the issue. Dishonest media is the norm today.
In Time that will change. I hope.
Dems may not want a civil war. But that does not mean they will not trigger one. They are stupid enough to do just that.

 

[Roofgardener]

Why on earth would the Democrats want to censor anything ? The US mainstream media does that for them already. (with the possible exception of Fox News)

Anyway, the 'Democrats' don't have the power or ability to trigger a civil war. Their grasp on the senate and house is already showing signs of crumbling.

 

[300 H and H]

Why on earth would the Democrats want to censor anything ? The US mainstream media does that for them already. (with the possible exception of Fox News)

Anyway, the 'Democrats' don't have the power or ability to trigger a civil war. Their grasp on the senate and house is already showing signs of crumbling.

I think you should reconsider your party affiliation.
Our County Republican fund raiser is tonight at 5:30 pm.
Your invited!

 

[Roofgardener]

I think you should reconsider your party affiliation.
Our County Republican fund raiser is tonight at 5:30 pm.
Your invited!

That's awfully decent of you @300 H and H; however, I must sadly decline.
I'm not a Republican voter, and I live several thousand miles away !
I'm British, and I vote Conservative (or independent for local elections).

 

[mla2ofus]

I think the dems are ramming thru everything possible between now and Nov '22 because they know by doing so they'll get their collective ass handed to them at that time.

 

[Roofgardener]

Out of curiousity, what - exactly - have the Dems rammed through ?

 

[Melensdad]

Looks like the entire "hopelessly divided" supreme court narrative has collapsed.

We heard several prominent Democrats suggest that the court will act in a partisan manner, that Trump/GOP ruined the possibility that the court would be able to agree on anything.

Within the past month we've had numerous UNANIMOUS major decisions come from the USCOTUS and as many more that were super-majority rulings. Clearly the court is working well, it is not broken, and it is reigning in some of the power abuses of the other branches of government.

Democrats forced to eat words after Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh voted to uphold Obamacare

Senate Democrats called on then-Supreme-Court-nominee Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from Obamacare cases, warning she was a threat to the law's survival.

justthenews.com

Democrats forced to eat words after Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh voted to uphold Obamacare​

Senate Democrats called on then-Supreme-Court-nominee Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from Obamacare cases, warning she was a threat to the law's survival.​

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh voted to uphold Obamacare after Democrats warned during the confirmation process for their nominations that they would gut Obamacare.

In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the entire Affordable Care Act could stay intact. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats sounded the alarm on Kavanaugh's nomination in 2018, arguing that he was a threat to Obamacare. Schumer predicted that Kavanaugh would "would put a dagger" through the heart of the law.

"Judge Kavanaugh has written opinions skeptical of our health care law, reproductive rights, and even the contraception coverage requirement," Schumer said in 2018.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut shared a similar view.

"[Republicans'] new strategy is to use the court system to invalidate the protections in the law for people with pre-existing conditions," Murphy said after Trump nominated Kavanaugh.

Following Trump's nomination of Coney Barrett last year, Schumer, then the minority leader, warned that Coney Barrett would vote to eliminate Obamacare if confirmed. Schumer went as far as to call on Coney Barrett to recuse herself from Obamacare-related cases.

"The American people should make no mistake — a vote by any Senator for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and eliminate protections for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions," Schumer said.

In September 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that Trump quickly nominated Coney Barrett so she could vote to invalidate Obamacare.

Then-Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat, said Coney Barrett would vote to overturn Obamacare.

Joe Biden, who was campaigning for president at the time of the nomination, said Coney Barrett was a threat to Obamacare.

"The goal of the Republican Party for ten years was a litmus test in selecting this nominee, regardless of the damage done to the U.S. Senate, to Americans' faith in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and to our democracy, and regardless of how the Affordable Care Act has protected hundreds of millions of people before and during the pandemic," Biden said.

Senate Democrats who did not attend the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation vote on Coney Barrett in person put photos of Obamacare recipients in their seats instead in protest of her nomination.

"This has been a sham process from the beginning," Schumer said. "Amidst a global pandemic and ongoing election, Republicans are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court Justice to take away health care from millions."

 

[Melensdad]

And then there is this editorial from USA Today, it pretty clearly outlines some of the panicked smears from the open-minded leftists and shows some of the cases where the Supreme Court is not hopelessly divided. Full story is at the link.

'Hopelessly divided' Supreme Court defies narrative with another unanimous opinion

For a hopelessly divided ideological court, the Supreme Court seems to be saying a lot in one voice about the law and its own institution

www.usatoday.com

'Hopelessly divided' Supreme Court defies narrative with another unanimous opinion​

For a hopelessly divided ideological court, the Supreme Court seems to be saying a lot in one voice about the law and its own institution​

The Supreme Court has finally handed down two of the five “blockbuster” opinions of this term with rulings on the Affordable Care Act and religious rights. The most striking aspect of the decisions was the absence of ideological divisions. Indeed, the case on religious rights is yet another unanimous decision from a Court that President Joe Biden has declared “out of whack” and Democratic leaders have declared hopelessly divided along ideological lines.​

​

This week represented the final collapse of the false narrative that has been endlessly repeated like a mantra in Congress and the media.​

​

When it comes to health care, the ACA has long been in the position of Mark Twain who insisted that his death has been “greatly exaggerated.” During the circus-like confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senators surrounded the room with giant pictures of people who would lose their health care due to her nomination. Various senators and legal analysts insisted that Barrett was obviously selected to kill the ACA.Democratic senators pummeled Barrett with stories of people who may die as a result of her nomination and portrayed her as a craven, heartless ideologue selected to take away health care for millions.​

​

It was not a matter of whether but when according to members like Sen. Mazie K. Hirono (D., HI) who declared she would vote against Barrett because “she will vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act.”​

​

False narrative smears Barrett​

At the time, I objected that the narrative was wildly off-base and that there was little chance that the majority of the justices would use the case to strike down the act. To the contrary, the act was overwhelmingly likely to be decided on technical grounds on either standing or severability. I also noted that, if anything, I would expect Barrett to rule against striking down the act in this case.She did so and joined in the 7-2 decision.​

​

This was never a plausible narrative but it did not matter to either the Democratic members. They demanded that Barrett assure them that she would vote for the ACA in the case – a dangerous and raw demand for a guarantee on a pending case as a condition for confirmation. Despite treating her as a virtual judicial serial killer, none will likely apologize or even recognize the unfair treatment at the confirmation hearing. It was after all just politics in an age of rage.​

​

Arguably, the most important of the “big ticket” cases was Fulton v. Philadelphia on whether a Catholic adoption agency could be forced to assist LGBT couples when such adoptions countermand religious beliefs. The Court delivered a 9-0 decision in favor of the Catholic charity and held that Philadelphia was violating the free exercise clause of the Constitution in requiring adherence to the city’s non-discrimination policy.​

​

Religious freedom upheld in court​

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held "The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents...violates the First Amendment."​

​

It is a major win for religious rights and the Court spoke as one in reversing the lower courts with a strong majority opinion and concurring opinions. It also adds strength to other pending cases, including yet another case involving the Masterpiece Cakeshopin Colorado to make cakes celebrating LGBT events.​

​

After winning a narrow decision before the Supreme Court in 2018, Jack Phillips was pursued by critics to make additional cakes and create the basis for another challenge. They may now regret that decision if Phillips builds on the earlier narrow ruling to secure another major ruling not just on religious freedom but free speech grounds.​

​

Men-only military draft:A vestige of anti-woman bias. Supreme Court should strike it down​

​

The Court continues to frustrate critics who insist that it is dysfunctional, divided and needs to be radically changed from packing the Court with a liberal majority to actually creating a new court for constitutional rulings like the Fulton case.​

​

For example, Professor Kent Greenfield argued that “the Supreme Court has become too partisan and unbalanced to trust it with deciding the most important issues of our day.”​

​

The Court itself however is not cooperating with this inconvenient line of unanimous decisions.The fact is that most of the opinions of the Court are not ideologically divided. Indeed, Justice Stephen Breyer recently objected to those calling the Court “conservative” and opposed those demanding that Congress pack the Court to achieve an immediate liberal majority.​

​

Liberal groups and media figures are aggressively pushing Breyer to retire, including an insulting billboard campaign by a group called “Demand Justice.”​

​

Sonia Suter:Supreme Court should respect Roe's viability line for abortion​

...​

​

​

 

[FrancSevin]

Why on earth would the Democrats want to censor anything ? The US mainstream media does that for them already. (with the possible exception of Fox News)

Anyway, the 'Democrats' don't have the power or ability to trigger a civil war. Their grasp on the senate and house is already showing signs of crumbling.

Logic dictates that the Democrats don't want a civil war. But they do want a radical change of our governance of which a majority of Americans do not agree. That could come to a conflict involving blood and treasure. AKA another civil conflict of war between states or ideologies.

Democrats were the cause of the civil war in 1861 when they attempted succession from the union to maintain their own social/economic structure. What they wanted is arguable but clearly they wanted something different than the original Union.

Look at the east and west coasts vrs "flyover" country.

Sounds a lot like today.

 

[m1west]

Logic dictates that the Democrats don't want a civil war. But they do want a radical change of our governance of which a majority of Americans do not agree. That could come to a conflict involving blood and treasure. AKA another civil conflict of war between states or ideologies.

Democrats were the cause of the civil war in 1861 when they attempted succession from the union to maintain their own social/economic structure. What they wanted is arguable but clearly they wanted something different than the original Union.

Look at the east and west coasts vrs "flyover" country.

Sounds a lot like today.

Then there is the AZ audit and the other battleground state audits coming. Pressure is building everywhere.