Here Are The Democrats Using The Leaked Dobbs Opinion As An Excuse To Demand Court-Packing

Here Are The Democrats Using The Leaked Dobbs Opinion As An Excuse To Demand Court-Packing

Democrats have long threatened to pack the Supreme Court with additional activist judges that would do the left’s bidding without hesitation. Now that the court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats are ignoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s belief that nine is “a good number,” and calling for adding extra justices.

On the campaign trail, Biden repeatedly refused to state his beliefs about court-packing. While he once called the unprecedented practice a “bonehead idea,” he did create a court-packing commission to evaluate just how useful it would be to his administration to add justices.

That commission later admitted its members “are divided on whether Court expansion would be wise.”

Meanwhile, here are the Democrats who are using the leaked Dobbs opinion to demand that Biden and Congress pack the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has long advocated for his party to exercise their “constitutional right” to pack the court when the time is right. Now that Roe is on the line, Schumer said it’s time to act.

“Given the conservative court majority is likely to be around for a while, do Democrats need to look more seriously at court expansion?” a reporter asked Schumer earlier this week.

“Look, the bottom line is our first step is to have the vote that we’re going to have next week. And the bottom line is that we’re going to look to these elections in November. And I think it’s going to, the American people are going to speak loudly and clearly that we need some change,” Schumer replied.

In addition to claiming that the Supreme Court is “stolen, illegitimate, and far-right,” Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the Dobbs leak confirmed his belief that Democrats must swiftly “expand the court.”

“There is no other recourse,” he tweeted.

More than once, squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said that Democrats should expand the court or risk giving “control” to “an antidemocratic minority.”

“Overturning Roe would put the lives of women across the country at risk. It would fly in the face of decades of precedent and the overwhelming majority of public opinion. And they will not stop here. Expand the court,” she tweeted.

Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff went so far as to claim that “codifying Roe isn’t enough” to satisfy the left’s abortion agenda.

“We must expand the court,” he tweeted.

“Expand the Court. The lives of women across this country depend on it,” Rep. Mondaire Jones of New York tweeted.

“C’mon Senate. Expand the Court. End the Filibuster. Codify Roe. Protect people’s rights!” Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York tweeted.

Rep. Andy Levin of Michigan said that any action less than abolishing the filibuster, codifying Roe, and expanding the Supreme Court is “empty rhetoric.”

“This unprecedented act warrants an unprecedented response. Democrats control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. End the Filibuster. Expand the Court. Remove Clarence Thomas. Do whatever it takes to guarantee free abortion care as a fundamental right,” a Washington D.C. councilwoman tweeted.

Democrat candidates also joined the chorus of leftists calling for court-packing.

“The road to Roe goes through Wisconsin. I can beat Ron Johnson and deliver a working majority to the US Senate. Together, we will eliminate the filibuster, codify Roe and expand the court,” tweeted Tom Nelson, a Democrat Senate candidate in Wisconsin.

Demand Justice, an activist organization led by Hillary Clinton’s former campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, also jumped on the court-packing bandwagon. According to an email to supporters this week, Demand Justice claimed that adding extra SCOTUS justices is the “clearest solution” to keeping abortion in the U.S. and urged supporters to demand court-packing action from Congress.

Star Trek star George Takei said Democrats should “expand the court” if the conservative justices who appeared to side with the majority of the court to overturn Roe can’t be impeached.

“They’re coming for same-sex marriage next. Expand the court,” John Pavlovitz, a progressive pastor, quipped.

Over the last week, Democrats have made their intentions clear. If the Supreme Court does indeed decide to overturn Roe, leftists will do everything in their power, including destroying the American judicial system, to get their way.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


Supreme Scandal: Leaked Supreme Court Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade — “Time to Heed the Constitution,” Returns Abortion to Elected Officials

Supreme Scandal: Leaked Supreme Court Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade — “Time to Heed the Constitution,” Returns Abortion to Elected Officials

WASHINGTON, DC — A draft Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade has been leaked to the press in one of the greatest scandals to ever hit the nation’s highest court and a possible attempt to intimidate one or more justices to reverse their vote or to ignite a liberal brushfire to pack the Supreme Court before Democrats lose Congress in November.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” the possible draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito reads, making the case that where the Constitution is silent, the American people govern themselves through elections and elected leaders, not federal judges. It quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” It then adds, “That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

The document published by Politico that claims to be a draft opinion appears to be authentic, but it is not a binding decision of the court unless at least five justices sign it, and this looks like a transparent and unprecedented betrayal by one of the 45 or so people with access to a draft Supreme Court opinion to prevent this decision from becoming law by scaring off moderate justices and attempting to whip the political left into a frenzy.

Pro-choice activists participate in a "flash-mob" demonstration outside of the US Supreme Court on January 22, 2022 in Washington, DC. - January 22 marks the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that established the constitutional right to abortion care in the United States. (Photo by Alex Edelman / AFP) (Photo by ALEX EDELMAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Pro-choice activists participate in a “flash-mob” demonstration outside of the US Supreme Court on January 22, 2022, in Washington, DC. (Photo by ALEX EDELMAN/AFP via Getty Images)

There are five key points to realize about this opinion, how its shocking leak could have happened, and why the Supreme Court will suffer incalculable damage if one of the majority justices switches sides.

First, what the 67-page opinion says. Key highlights include page 5:

We hold that Roe v. Wade must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The right to abortion does not fall into this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown to American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

The opinion discusses at length whether the Constitution as originally understood included a right to abortion, concluding it does not. It then goes on for many pages of the features of stare decisis — the legal policy of when to adhere to court precedent — and explains why stare decisis does not require upholding Roe’s right to abortion.

Then finally, on page 62 it addresses the point that whoever betrayed the court was likely trying to make with this unprecedented violation of trust: “The American people’s belief in the rule of law would be shaken if they lost respect for this Court as an institution that decides important cases based on principle, not ‘social and political pressures.’”

“But we cannot exceed the scope of our authority under the Constitution, and we cannot allow our decisions to be affected by the extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito responds for the court. “That is true both when we initially decide a constitutional issue and when we consider whether to overrule a prior decision.”

Second, why the opinion is probably genuine. In an era of word processors, fraudsters can make documents that physically look like the real thing. But this is different.

First, Supreme Court opinions are dense and complex. There are extremely carefully written, and are full of citations and quotations. Experienced appellate attorneys know what they look like, and this carries all the hallmarks of that.

Also, each justice has his or her own voice. This reads like an opinion by Sam Alito. So there is every reason to believe he authored this first draft. And given that the Dobbs case was argued on December 1, the timestamp of February 10 on this draft would fit a normal opinion-writing timeframe for something of this scope.

Third, how this could have happened and why. The only people who definitely have access to this are the nine justices and their 36 law clerks — four assigned to each justice — for a total of 45 people. It is almost certain that it had to have been one of the law clerks, who would take the ultimate credential a young lawyer can achieve and instead put himself on a track to never be licensed to practice law in this nation.

Fourth, why this might not actually become the actual decision of the Supreme Court. It takes five votes on the nine-member court to make it a majority opinion. When cases are argued, the justices have a weekly closed-door conference on Friday at which they discuss the case, take a preliminary vote, and one justice from the majority is assigned the task of writing the opinion.

After that opinion is written, it is circulated to the other justices. That is when the negotiating begins, where justices say that they could join if certain changes are made, and others decide to dissent and organize that writing effort. Still, other justices join the majority judgment but write concurring opinions to emphasize some point important to them.

At any time during this process, justices can change their vote. And it happens. Often the cases do not grab headlines. But earthshattering decisions like the one upholding Obamacare in 2012, NFIB v. Sebelius, bears the hallmarks of being such a case.

This then appears to be an effort to intimidate a moderate conservative justice to switch sides, in which case this opinion would become a dissenting opinion, and a liberal justice’s opinion would speak for the majority.

The threat here appears to be court-packing. In the 1937 Jones & Laughlin Steel case, two Supreme Court justices switched from years of their own precedents to reinterpret the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, fundamentally transforming the power of the federal government over the nation.

They did this in an unnecessary attempt to stop FDR’s plan to pack the court with six new justices, for a total of 15. It was unnecessary because the plan was already collapsing, but the public intimidation convinced a couple of members of the court to virtually transform the nation.

Democrats have explored court packing over the past two years for the first time in eight decades. Doubtless many on the left will claim that now they have to do it.

Finally, the Supreme Court’s credibility is at stake to see this through. If anyone switches their vote because of this, the court will take more than a generation to regain the trust of the American people.

To the contrary, the justices should double-down. This is likely a 5-4 decision, because this betrayal looks like an intimidation tactic to get one justice to change his mind. Since the decision is in many ways out, those five should stop the pressure by all signing the latest version of it, and publishing it immediately as a binding decision of the Court. Those with dissents or concurrences can publish them later if they are so inclined. But this shameful debacle and the immediate pressure campaign it is creating should end now, with the court handing down the decision in Dobbs.

As page 65 of the leaked opinion explains:

We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.

We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.

The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States.


Democrats Smear Josh Hawley For Revealing They Don’t Care If Supreme Court Justices Love Perverts And Hate The Constitution

Democrats Smear Josh Hawley For Revealing They Don’t Care If Supreme Court Justices Love Perverts And Hate The Constitution

Amid the Senate confirmation hearings for President Joe Biden’s radical U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson this week, the left has been working overtime to take down Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, and it’s obvious why: The Missouri Republican’s questions about Jackson’s lenient track record on child porn offenders threaten Democrats’ goal of transforming the high court into a bench of reliable leftist activists.

Even before Jackson’s confirmation hearings officially began on Monday, the left’s information operation designed to discredit Hawley for daring to question Biden’s self-admitted affirmative action pick ramped up. When Hawley pointed out that Jackson has a history of going easy on criminals who possessed and distributed child pornography, he was smeared by the propaganda press, White House, and Democrats.

“Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker. She’s been advocating for it since law school. This goes beyond ‘soft on crime.’ I’m concerned that this [is] a record that endangers our children,” Hawley tweeted last week.

Immediately, despite Republicans’ promises that they would maintain “a fair, thorough hearing” unlike the one given to now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the left rushed to accuse Hawley of maligning Jackson’s character and record.

Hawley told his colleagues during Monday’s hearing that he enjoyed his time talking with the “enormously thoughtful” and “enormously accomplished” Jackson. Yet the same dishonest outlets and Democrats who worked to destroy Kavanaugh’s life and chances of becoming a justice have teamed up to bury Hawley’s concerns despite his constitutional duty to evaluate presidential nominees to the Supreme Court.

As The Federalist’s Rachel Bovard noted, “Democrats are already claiming that Hawley’s critique of Jackson’s judicial record rises to the same level as, say, entertaining completely unverified gang-rape allegations against a Supreme Court nominee.”

The White House first signaled its desire for Hawley’s explosive tweets to go away last week when it claimed that Jackson’s scandalous treatment of child porn offenders was just “cherry-picked elements of her record out of context,” language later wielded against Hawley by The Washington Post.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki disparaged Hawley in her daily press briefing, and Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates called the evidence of Jackson’s “soft on crime” track record “toxic and weakly-presented misinformation.”

Bates also amplified a tweet from pro-Biden Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who accused Hawley of “going full QANON.”

It wasn’t long after the administration expressed disdain with Hawley that the corporate media piled on. Leftist media figures, from Joy Reid to the conspiracy theorists at The View, jumped at the opportunity to launch false, politically motivated attacks against a Republican who openly opposed their choice for the court.

The media insulted Hawley personally and even lied that his apprehensions about Jackson were “baseless” and stemmed from right-wing “extremism.”

Democrats Employ Press Propaganda

Even print outlets such as The Washington Post and National Review issued fake fact-checks that tried to rationalize lowering sentences and minimizing punishment for child porn offenders to make Hawley look bad. This negative Hawley coverage was in turn amplified by the White House and Senate Democrats.

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain tweeted WaPo’s article to justify calling Hawley’s worries “false attacks.”

This Vox article, which Bates tweeted, accused Hawley of “leveling a false and astonishing charge” against Jackson but later admitted that she “did, indeed, sentence these seven offenders to less time in prison than these sentencing guidelines recommend.”

CNN, Reason, and HuffPost used similar tactics to justify Jackson’s lenient sentencing history and attack Hawley. And even National Review pushed against Hawley in an article then used by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin and Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

“Judge, there have been several news organizations that have taken a look at the Senator from Missouri’s charges. ABC News, CNN News, The Washington Post and others have concluded that they are inaccurate and unfair to you in their conclusions. In fact, one writer has said they are ‘meritless‘ to the point of unacceptable levels,” Durbin claimed during the confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

Even before Jackson’s confirmation hearings began, the White House, Democrats, and the corrupt press were gearing up to take down and yell racist at anyone who scrutinized Biden’s nominee.

Hawley’s concerns are valid and deserve to be examined in Jackson’s confirmation hearings, but the left doesn’t like the opposition. When its foremost goal of radicalizing the nation’s highest court is threatened by Republicans digging up inconvenient information, it predictably resorts to coordinated attacks from Democrats and cronies in the media. Hawley is in the way, and so he must be flattened.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.


Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Refuses to Join with Ginsburg, Breyer in Opposing Court-Packing

Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Refuses to Join with Ginsburg, Breyer in Opposing Court-Packing

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearing on Tuesday refused to join with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and outgoing Justice Stephen Breyer in opposing court-packing.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Jackson where she stood on court-packing, noting that although it is a congressional decision, justices have weighed in on the subject before.

Grassley specifically asked her if she would side with liberal justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who opposed court-packing.

Jackson refused to say that she agreed with them against court-packing, and said she did not want to answer because she was so determined to stay in her “lane.”

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told CBS’s Face the Nation that her refusal to weigh in on court-packing was problematic.

“I asked her to defend the court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Breyer both publicly opposed court-packing, that is, trying to increase the number of court members in order to get an outcome you like,” said McConnell.

McConnell was referring to a meeting he had with Jackson this month, prior to the hearings.

“That would have been an easy thing for her to do, to defend the integrity of the court. She wouldn’t do that,” he said.

Leftist activists have called for increasing the number of Supreme Court seats from the current nine to 13, in order to overcome the current conservative leaning of the Supreme Court. There are six justices appointed by Republican presidents, and three appointed by Democrat presidents.

Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on Twitter or on Facebook. 


Ted Cruz: Republicans Did Not Try to Pack Court, Democrats ‘Trying to Rig the Game’

Ted Cruz: Republicans Did Not Try to Pack Court, Democrats ‘Trying to Rig the Game’

Republicans did not try to pack the Supreme Court when they controlled Washington, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said during a press conference on Thursday, contending Democrats are “trying to rig the game” because they know voters will not support their radical agenda.

“There’s a reason the Democrats don’t actually want to go to the voters and try to convince the voters to do this: Because the voters will tell them to jump in a lake,” Cruz said during a Thursday press conference alongside Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“Instead, they’re trying to rig the game. Instead, they’re trying to fix the system. They’re behaving like corrupt politicians. And by the way, just a few years ago, Republicans were in the same position,” the Texas senator continued, explaining that Republicans held a majority in the House and Senate in 2017.

“We could of,” he said, noting the left’s obsession with describing Trump as “some crazy autocrat.” Despite having total control in Washington, Republicans, he noted, made no such moves:

You didn’t see Republicans, when we had control of the Senate, try to rig the game. You didn’t see us try to pack the Court. There’s nothing that would have prevented Republicans from doing what they’re doing other than respect for the rule of law. Other than basic decency. Other than recognizing that democracy matters and packing the Court and tearing down the institutions that protect our rights is fundamentally wrong.

Packing the Supreme Court, as proposed by Democrats via the recently unveiled Judiciary Act of 2021, goes beyond business as usual, he added.

“What we shouldn’t be debating is a radical plan to destroy the United States Supreme Court, to destroy judicial independence, and to destroy the rights that are protected in the Bill of Rights. All of those are hanging in the balance,” he warned.

His remarks follow last week’s unveiling of the Judiciary Act of 2021, a proposal that would expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13.

“The Republicans stole two seats on the Supreme Court, and now it is up to us to repair that damage,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said last week, deeming democracy “in jeopardy” because “the Supreme Court’s standing is solely damaged.”

“And the way we repair it is straightforward,” he said, previewing the plan to add four Biden-appointed justices to the Court.

“These four new seats, to be filled by president Biden, will reconstitute the United States Supreme Court. The bench will then rightfully reflect the values of the majority of the American people on whose behalf they serve,” Markey added.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released this week shows a majority of voters oppose Supreme Court packing by a 22-point margin.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Backs Court-packing; Says Courts Should Not Overrule Legislature

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Backs Court-packing; Says Courts Should Not Overrule Legislature

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has backed Democrats’ effort to pack the Supreme Court by adding four new seats that would be filled by President Joe Biden, arguing the courts should not be allowed to overturn laws passed by Congress.

The Washington Times reported:

“I do think we should be expanding the court,” she told reporters.

The New York Democrat, part of the progressive “Squad” collective on Capitol Hill, reasoned the justices overturning laws is part of the problem with the 6-3 conservative majority.

“The idea that nine people, that a nine-person court, can overturn laws that … hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocacy and policymakers drew consensus on … we have to … just ask ourselves, I think as a country, how much does that current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does,” she said.

Ocasio-Cortez appeared to reject the principle of judicial review enshrined in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

While radical, her stance repeated the position taken by then-President Barack Obama in 2012, when Obamacare came before the Supreme Court.

Obama complained “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Later, Obama, a former lecturer in constitutional law, had to clarify that he did accept the principle of judicial review, which has been part of America’s constitutional framework for more than two centuries, and remains a crucial component of the balance of power between the three branches of government.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


Radical Democrat Priorities in Biden’s First 100 Days: Packing Courts, Amnesty, Reparations, Federalizing Elections, DC Statehood, Banning Electoral College

Radical Democrat Priorities in Biden’s First 100 Days: Packing Courts, Amnesty, Reparations, Federalizing Elections, DC Statehood, Banning Electoral College

The Democrats have proposed, within President Joe Biden’s first 100 days, radical initiatives contrary to Biden’s “back to normalcy” campaign sold to the American people.

Accordingly, the Democrats have introduced the following radical initiatives: Packing the courts, amnesty, reparations, federalized elections, D.C. statehood, and banning the Electoral College.

These radical ideas and proposals run counter to what Biden said during his announcement speech for president:

The American people want their government to work, and I don’t think that’s too much for them to ask. I know some people in D.C. say it can’t be done. But let me tell them something, and make sure they understand this. The country is sick of the division. They’re sick of the fighting. They’re sick of the childish behavior.

Supreme Court-Packing

The Supreme Court packing initiative has not been attempted since 1937. But that changed April 15, when several congressmen introduced legislation to do so.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said:

Our democracy is in jeopardy today because the Supreme Court standing is sorely damaged. The way we repair it is straightforward. We can undo the damage that the Republicans have done by restoring balance. And we do it by adding four seats to the Court to create a 13-member Supreme Court.

“It’s a nice number,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) added. “Senator McConnell and Republicans packed the Court over the last couple of years as Senator Markey outlined.”

Yet when Joe Biden was asked about packing the Court during his campaign, he would not articulate his direct position for fear of its shaky popularity. Instead, Biden said he would convene a commission to determine the merits of such a decision, which he has since done.

Upon the news of a court-packing bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she stands with Biden’s commission without entirely dismissing the pending legislation.

According to the Congressional Research Service, while Congress has expanded the federal courts based on caseload in harmony with the Constitution, “some contend that expanding the Court with the intent to shape the Court’s composition and obtain more favorable case outcomes [for the president] may raise constitutional questions.”

[embedded content]


The Biden administration released its “wish-list amnesty and cheap labor bill” January 29, while  indicating “it would cooperate to push through a series of smaller amnesty bills,” Breitbart’s Neil Munro reported.

“If we can reach an agreement soon, very soon, we will have the base bill reintroduced and then that will be our starting point to build support as well as consider any additions, too,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said to Newsweek.

“If Congress is able to put together a package with a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, and agricultural workers ‘that’s something the White House would give a good look at,’” an undisclosed source said.

Of course, the dilution of the American electorate, replaced with voters favoring the Democrat Party, is the ultimate goal.

[embedded content]


The House Judiciary Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would designate a commission to study reparations for black Americans over slavery.

“The bill would create a 15-member ‘Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans,’ which would recommend ‘appropriate remedies.’” Breitbart’s Joel B Pollak reported.

The text of the bill argues that slavery resulted in “systemic” discrimination against black Americans… but it is unclear who would pay reparations and to whom.

“Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), one of two Black Republicans in the House, characterized the legislation as portraying Black communities as helpless while ignoring their successes,” Washington Post reported 

Federalizing Elections

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 March 3, dubbed the “For the People Act,” which will ultimately lead to the federalization of U.S. elections.

“A summary of the bill notes that it ‘expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting)’ and imposes limits on removing voters from voter rolls,” Breitbart’s Hannah Bleau reported.

“If this bill passes, it puts in all these terrible provisions,” Hans von Spakovsky said to Breitbart News Daily. “It’s a federal micromanagement of the election process, and everything that folks on the left want to reduce the integrity [and] the security of the election process is in there.”

Fox News reported, “The legislation would establish a 6:1 match for each grassroots contribution to a candidate up to $200. For example, a $200 donation to a House candidate would garner a $1,200 match in public funds for a total contribution of $1,400.”

D.C. Statehood

The House Oversight Committee advanced Bill H.R. 51 Wednesday by a vote of 25-19 to create D.C. statehood, perhaps receiving a full House vote next week.

Before the bill was passed in committee, Rep. Any Biggs (R-AZ) said the ultimate contention seems to hinge “on the 23rd Amendment, which guarantees the federal Capitol at least three electors in presidential elections.”

The representative’s perspective is supported by legal scholars, who have denied D.C. statehood’s feasibility without a Constitutional amendment to the 23rd Amendment. The Office of Legal Counsel in 2007 stated it was unconstitutional, the Justice Department under former President Reagan and former President Carter said the transformation was unconstitutional, and so did Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, when he sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nonetheless, the Democrats move forward.

Electoral College

The Electoral College seems to be under attack as well. Thursday, a resolution was introduced to abolish the weighting system that maintains equality among the United States’ vast and differing populations when voting in the presidential election.

Many radical Democrats have long attempted to remove one of the most important institutions in the country. On the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives in January 2019, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) proposed killing the electoral college.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” Cohen wrote.

Perhaps Cohen was taking notes from former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“You won’t be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” the failed presidential candidate wrote in an  op-ed in the Atlantic in 2018, which she reiterated two years later, “I believe we should abolish the Electoral College and select our president by the winner of the popular vote, same as every other office. But while it still exists, I was proud to cast my vote in New York for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,” she tweeted.


Prominent Democrats Held Range of Opinions on Court-Packing

Prominent Democrats Held Range of Opinions on Court-Packing

Prominent Democrats have held a range of opinions on court-packing coinciding with the constant fluctuations of the political landscape, with some fiercely opposing the scheme in the past despite the newfound push from the radical left to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices —  a move Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) believes will “rightfully reflect the values of the majority of the American people.”

Markey, formally unveiling the legislation on Thursday alongside fellow Democrats, asserted the U.S. currently has a Court with a “stilted, illegitimate 6-3 conservative majority” which has “caused this crisis of confidence in our country.” Conservatives fundamentally question such statements, contending the claims of a “conservative” majority remain shaky, at best.

“These four new seats, to be filled by president Biden, will reconstitute the United States Supreme Court. The bench will then rightfully reflect the values of the majority of the American people on whose behalf they serve,” Markey claimed.

“We must expand the Court and we must abolish the filibuster to do it,” he said.

Democrats began ramping up their calls to expand the Supreme Court following former President Trump’s nomination of then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom he appointed to replace the late-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, many prominent Democrats, past and present, have held a range of opinions on the matter:

President Joe Biden:

While Biden offered coy answers on his views of court-packing in the weeks ahead of the 2020 presidential election, he adamantly opposed the move during his time as a senator, describing it as a “power grab.”

“He [FDR] wanted to increase the number of justices to 15, allowing himself to nominate those additional judges,” then-Sen. Biden (D-DE) said. “It took an act of courage on the part of his own party institutionally to stand up against this power grab”:

Although Biden admitted he is no longer a “fan of court-packing,” he has signaled an openness to it, stating on the campaign trail he would “cross that bridge when we get to it.”

During an October 60 Minutes interview, Biden vowed to put together what he described as a

…bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative, and I will ask them to over 180 days come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack the way in which it’s being handled.

“It’s not about court-packing,” he said at the time. “There’s a number of things that constitutional scholars are debated, and I’d look to see what recommendations that commission might make.”

“The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football,” he added. “Whoever has the most votes get whatever they want. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

Harry Reid:

The former Senate majority leader warned against packing the Court this month, expressing an openness to a commission examining potential reforms but surmising the commission will “come back and disappoint a lot of people.”

“I think they’re going to come back and say, we should just kind of leave it alone,” he said, warning, “we’d better be very, very careful in saying that we need to expand the Supreme Court”:

Justice Stephen Breyer:

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recently warned against packing the Supreme Court, stating in an April Harvard Law School address that it could very well “diminish” confidence in the Court.

“If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches,” Breyer explained.

“Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust,” he added.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

The late-Justice also rejected notions to expand the Court, telling National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg in 2019, “It would make the Court look partisan.”

At the time, Democrat presidential candidates, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and current Vice President Kamala Harris, outlined their intentions to expand the Court to alter the balance of the Court in their party’s favor.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder:

In 2019, Holder floated the idea of the next president packing the Court.

“The Republicans have abused their power to give themselves an unfair advantage,” Holder said at the time. “It is necessary and totally appropriate to add seats.”

 Earlier this year, Holder encouraged Democrats to “use the power” of the majority to reform the Courts.

“It is painfully clear Democrats and progressives are uncomfortable with the acquisition and use of power, while Republicans and conservatives never have been. Our courts badly need reforms,” he said, accusing Republicans of absuing their power “to give themselves an unfair advantage.”

“It is necessary and totally appropriate to add seats,” he concluded.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA):

The California Democrat on Thursday expressed opposition to his colleagues’ move to expand the court, explaining he supports term limits for Supreme Court Justices over Court expansion, warning, “if you try to expand it right now, that’s going to further polarize and tear apart this country.”

Vice President Kamala Harris:

While Harris toned down her view after Biden selected her as his running mate, dodging former Vice President Mike Pence’s inquiry on court-packing during last year’s vice presidential debate, she told the New York Times in a 2019 interview she was “absolutely” open to the idea:

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA):

The senator, who introduced the legislation to expand the Court from nine justices to 13, appeared to hold a slightly different view in 2016, standing behind a sign reading “#WeNeedNine as the battle over Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination heated up, demanding lawmakers consider his nomination:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

While Pelosi told reporters on Thursday she had no immediate plans to bring the court-expanding legislation to the floor, she ultimately said it is not something that is completely “out of the question”:

She signaled an openness to the concept in October 2020, telling MSNBC she would “take a look and see” whether the U.S. should expand the size of the Supreme Court.

“In 1876, there were nine justices on the court. Our population has grown enormously since then. Should we expand the court? Well, let’s take a look and see. But not — and that relates to the nine district courts, maybe we need more district courts as well,” she added.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ):

The Arizona lawmaker steered away from the far-left members last year, with her spokeswoman Hannah Hurley confirming, “Senator Sinema opposes court-packing.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

In 2019, early on in the Democrat primary race, Sanders warned against packing the Supreme Court. As Reuters reported:

My worry is that the next time the Republicans are in power they will do the same thing, I think that is not the ultimate solution,” he said, opting to instead “consider proposals that created term limits for Supreme Court justices or would rotate judges between the highest court and the lower-level appeals courts.

Notably, during the primary, former Democrat presidential candidates, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Pete Buttigieg, Gov. Jay Inslee (D), and Andrew Yang, signaled an openness to expand the Court.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

Schumer last year left the door open to the possibility of expanding the Supreme Court. When asked about adding additional justices, the New York Democrat reportedly said, “We first have to win the majority, because if we don’t win the majority, these questions are all moot.”

“But if we win the majority, everything is on the table,” he said of nixing the filibuster, something Markey said is necessary to make a Court expansion a reality.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): 

The West Virginia lawmaker, widely considered a moderate Democrat, vowed last year to oppose attempts to pack the Court.

“I commit to you tonight, and I commit to all of your viewers and everyone else that’s watching, I want to allay those fears, I want to rest those fears for you right now,” he said during a November appearance on Fox News’s Special Report.

“Because when they talk about, whether it be packing the courts or ending the filibuster, I will not vote to do that. I will not vote to pack the courts,” he added.

A September survey, taken as radical Democrats renewed their calls to expand the Court, found a majority of registered American voters favoring a “Keep Nine” amendment, which would establish the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, 62 percent to 18 percent.

Similarly, an October New York Times/Siena College survey found a majority, 58 percent, expressing the belief the U.S. should “not increase” the size of the Supreme Court.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)