{"id":86103,"date":"2020-10-10T02:58:01","date_gmt":"2020-10-09T23:58:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/democrats-court-packing-dreams-are-utterly-dangerous\/"},"modified":"2020-10-10T02:58:01","modified_gmt":"2020-10-09T23:58:01","slug":"democrats-court-packing-dreams-are-utterly-dangerous","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/democrats-court-packing-dreams-are-utterly-dangerous\/","title":{"rendered":"#Democrats\u2019 court-packing dreams are \u2018utterly dangerous\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

“#Democrats\u2019 court-packing dreams are \u2018utterly dangerous\u2019<\/strong>”
\n<\/p>\n

\n Joe Biden says, \u201cYou\u2019ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over.\u201d To this point, Biden hasn\u2019t offered any position on court-packing, one of the gravest threats to the constitutional order in modern American history. Whether he is too scared of offending a significant faction of his party or he believes it\u2019s an idea worth considering, his silence is a reflection of a dangerous shift on the left.<\/p>\n

Progressives, of course, have a point. If the Supreme Court adheres to even the most rudimentary constitutional limits on state power, rather than surrendering to the impulses of majoritarian politics, it\u2019s going to be a huge impediment to their agenda. Indeed, they have the same motivation as President Franklin Roosevelt had when he attempted to expand the court in 1937: one-party rule.<\/p>\n

FDR revived a Woodrow Wilson plan to arbitrarily place political allies into the courts, one for every judge over 70 years old, which would have meant 50 additional political allies on the federal bench and six additional Supreme Court justices.<\/p>\n

Like today\u2019s Democrats, he first softened up the public by attempting to delegitimize the court \u2014 claiming, for instance, that the justices were incompetent geriatric cases incapable of performing their duties. (It is somewhat ironic that the most reliably pro-New Deal justice at the time, Louis Brandeis, was the only octogenarian on the court.)<\/p>\n

In those days, there were still enough politicians who valued the separation of powers to stop him. Of the 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who signed a document opposing FDR\u2019s scheme, seven were Democrats.<\/p>\n

They didn\u2019t merely maintain that FDR was wrong or misguided; they argued that the court-packing plan was an \u201cutterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle,\u201d a transparent scheme to punish justices whose opinions diverged from the executive branch and \u201can invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country.\u201d<\/p>\n

If enacted, the senators wrote, court-packing would create a \u201cvicious precedent which must necessarily undermine our system.\u201d They concluded the plan \u201cshould be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.\u201d<\/p>\n

FDR, whose popularity would plummet to historic lows after the court-packing threat, ultimately went on to app<\/a>oint eight justices and to largely have his way in fundamentally changing US governance. But he was prevented from destroying the court as an institution, and modern-day Democrats are now seeking to finish that job.<\/p>\n

Today, every instance in which Democrats are denied a political victory is immedia<\/a>tely transformed into a national \u201ccrisis\u201d in which the public has \u201clost faith\u201d in a system that worked perfectly fine when they were in power.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not merely the progressive fringe that demands Democrats blow up the courts. It is the partisan, self-proclaimed defenders of \u201cnorms.\u201d In The Atlantic<\/a>, the nation\u2019s leading periodical of intellectual anti-constitutionalism, Lawfare\u2019s Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey argue that \u201cif Republicans continue the smash-and-grab approach to confirming Barrett,\u201d court-packing \u201cmay be the only way for Democrats to save the court.\u201d<\/p>\n

The duly elected president and the duly elected Senate are observing the constitutionally stipulated guidelines for placing a highly qualified jurist on the court. Someone will need to do a better job of explaining how dismantling the court will \u201csave\u201d it.<\/p>\n

Perhaps you nod along as Biden spuriously argues that Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s nomination is nothing more than the exploitation of a \u201cloophole\u201d to undo the Affordable Care Act, ignoring the fact that we don\u2019t know how she\u2019ll rule on the Obamacare lawsuit.<\/p>\n

But back here in the real world, we know that court-packing would be far more destructive to our political order than anything Donald Trump has done, Barrett\u2019s nomination very much included.<\/p>\n

The notion that the Senate shouldn\u2019t confirm Trump\u2019s nominee because Biden might win the election or Trump lost the \u201cpopular vote\u201d is highly dubious. Justices do not need the consent of the majority, nor should they seek it.<\/p>\n

As Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, noted, some of the court\u2019s \u201cmost reviled cases\u201d \u2014 Dred Scott (slavery), Plessy (separate-but-equal) \u2014 \u201cinvolved acceding to democratically enacted policies. I can think of no higher compliment to pay a judge than to characterize her as antidemocratic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Twitter: @DavidHarsanyi<\/em>\n <\/div>\n

\n

For forums sites go to Forum.BuradaBiliyorum.Com<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

If you want to read more News<\/a> articles, you can visit our News category.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Source<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“#Democrats\u2019 court-packing dreams are \u2018utterly dangerous\u2019” Joe Biden says, \u201cYou\u2019ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over.\u201d To this point, Biden hasn\u2019t offered any position on court-packing, one of the gravest threats to the constitutional order in modern American history. Whether he is too scared of offending a significant faction of his…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":86104,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/nypost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/10\/USA-ELECTION_Joe-Biden-2.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1200","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[70897],"tags":[75041,70327,71982,71434,10701,991,71404],"class_list":["post-86103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-10-9-20","tag-2020-presidential-election","tag-amy-coney-barrett","tag-courts","tag-democrats","tag-joe-biden","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86103","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86103\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/86104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}