Editor of Scientific American Apologizes to Young Voters for 'Fascist' Gen X Electing...
Kamala Harris Arrives at the White House to a Throng of Cheering (Soon...
New York Fashion Week Had a ‘Hall of Hotties’ and Abortion Access Skee-Ball
No NYT, You're Not Entitled to Your Own Facts. Especially When It Comes...
We Didn't See That Coming: Trump Taps Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary
The Bulwark Says Trump Voters Need to Do Some Soul-Searching Too
'Cannot Ever Happen Again': Jesse Kelly Reminds the Right Not to Forgive or...
NEVER Apologize to the Woke Mob! Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe Won't Say Sorry for...
Witnesses Defend Daniel Penny on Police Bodycam Video
Here's Your Periodic Reminder the UN Is EVIL and USELESS: They Invited the...
Tufts University Denies It Cut Ties With Rep. Seth Moulton Over Trans Comments
MSNBC's Ratings Are Tanking, CNN Is Set for More Layoffs and These Are...
TOLERANCE! Charlamagne Tha God Says It's Okay to Misgender Caitlyn Jenner, Because Jenner...
Oprah Winfrey Denies Being Paid $1 Million for Harris Town Hall but FEC...
Eleventh Circuit Judge Absolutely Embarrasses CNN on Misinformation and We Are Here for...

Washington Post: Threatening to expand the Supreme Court is a good thing as long as Democrats are doing it

Packing the courts isn’t a new idea among Democrats, but as the Washington Post reports, Sen. Tim Kaine has said if President Trump confirms another Supreme Court nominee this year (they’re keeping a very close eye on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hospital visits), Democrats should consider adding seats to the Supreme Court. “If they show that they’re unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can’t feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that’s fully constitutional in our availability.”

Advertisement

Funny that Kaine would worry about precedent and history when Democrats have been arguing for the elimination of the Electoral College ever since Trump won.

Paul Waldman argues in the Washington Post that Democrats packing the court would be a good thing:

You may recall that during the presidential primaries, multiple Democratic candidates expressed an openness to expanding the size of the court, which can be done with legislation. But Joe Biden was not among them. “I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court,” he said in July 2019, “because we’ll live to rue that day.”

But at that point, while the debate was deeply affected by the fate of Garland’s seat, it wasn’t about the particular scenario of a last-minute grab of yet another one. Democrats already find the current situation deeply offensive; they’ve won more votes in six of the past seven presidential elections yet conservatives control the court. Make it seven out of eight elections and a 6-to-3 conservative majority, and there would be a revolt in which even those who refused to consider enlarging the court might change their minds.

While the debate was deeply affected by the fate of Garland’s seat? When was it ever “Garland’s seat”? (May he rest in peace.)

Advertisement

So if the Supreme Court should be expanded, why not do it now?

Advertisement

Advertisement

Democrats have great respect for precedent and norms, it’s just that they want to pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Senate, eliminate the Electoral College, etc. But it’s all good if they’re the ones in power.


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement