DEI Ruins EVERYTHING: Check Out How Woke 'Velma' Season 2 Updated Hex Girls...
Three Year Letterman HILARIOUSLY Mocks Protester Tackle in Epic Takedown
This Ain't It … Readers Sound Off on the Onion's First (GROSS) Article...
Donald Trump Dared to Speak Prompting a Pearl Clutching Daniel Dale Fact Check
'Jews Fight Back' - Jon Lovitz Spells it Out For Antisemites
Performative Northwestern Seder Roundly Decried for Taking Place on the Wrong Day
School Is in Session: Guy Learns the HARD WAY After Asking X Users...
AOC Visits Columbia 'Encampment' One Day After Released Video of Leader Calling for...
Wait, What? Julia Ioffe: College Presidents are TERRIFIED of the GOP. Shutting Down...
Incredible! Tornado Chaser Captures Stunning Footage of Nebraska Twister
We Regret to Inform You the 'Experts' Are at It Again: They Say...
Biden's INSANE Proposed Capital Gains Tax Would WRECK Economy
J.K. Rowling Takes Victory Lap and Applauds David Bell, Tavistock Gender Clinic Whistleblo...
You Don't Despise the Media Enough: CNN Omits MAJOR Bit of Info on...
Speaker Johnson Takes Charge of Academia's Radicalism Problem

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