Justice Samuel Alito Moved to Undisclosed Location

Justice Samuel Alito Moved to Undisclosed Location

WASHINGTON, DC – Justice Samuel Alito has reportedly been moved to an undisclosed location for safety, after leftwing radicals attempting to intimidate conservative justices for considering overruling Roe v. Wade, all in the name of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, listed conservative justices’ home addresses online.

Militant leftists, including a group called Ruth Sent Us, are trying to physically intimidate the five justices who are expected to sign the final version of Alito’s leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, with the other four justices being Clarence Thomas – appointed by Bush 41 – and the three justices appointed by Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

They are also reportedly targeting Chief Justice John Roberts. This shows the unreasoning nature of their ire, as Roberts’ questions during oral argument in Dobbs strongly suggest that he was exploring ways to uphold Mississippi’s ban without overruling Roe.

While doxing the justices’ home addresses is ostensibly so protesters can go to those justices’ homes to protest – which many Americans consider objectionable by itself, and in fact which violates federal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1507 – many others also note this could lead to violence, if an activist were to attack a justice or the justice’s family.

Reports around D.C. are that Alito and his family have been moved to an undisclosed location for safety, given the additional opposition he is facing as the writer of the leaked majority opinion.

Ruth Sent Us is a reference to the late Ruth Ginsburg, who passed away in 2020 and whom President Trump replaced with Justice Barrett. Claiming the late justice would condone such things is outrageous, given her friendships with conservative justices and that she was best friends with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who relentlessly tried to overrule Roe throughout his 30 years on the Supreme Court.

Scalia passed away in 2016 and was succeeded by Gorsuch after Trump took office in 2017. Before that, Scalia and Ginsburg vacationed together with their spouses, went to the opera together, and even sang together. They vigorously disagreed on legal issues in their dueling Supreme Court opinions, but they and their families were very close.

Moreover, Ginsburg criticized Roe v. Wade. She was certainly one of the foremost supporters of a constitutional right to abortion, but she repeatedly said that Roe was badly reasoned and vulnerable to harsh criticism. She even faulted where Roe suggested an abortion right could be found, as she would not even have agreed that a right to abortion is situated in the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Instead, Ginsburg believed that such a right was on firmer footing if it was guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

All that notwithstanding, Ruth Sent Us and other radicals are following a dangerous course by targeting the justices’ homes, given that such online hate maps have led to acts of terrorism.

In 2012, the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) posted such a map to the Family Research Council (FRC), a nonprofit that supports “faith, family, and freedom.” Leftwing activist Floyd Lee Corkins II used that map to find FRC’s offices with firearms and 100 rounds of ammunition, where he shot office manager Leo Johnson but was disarmed before he could assassinate the rest of the staff. Corkins was later convicted of domestic terrorism and imprisoned.

There is a difference between free speech to express opposition and trying to physically intimidate a judge to change his court decision out of fear for his or her family’s safety. President Joe Biden and his White House have still not condemned this crossing of that important line.

Ken Klukowski is a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department, and is a Breitbart News contributor.

Source

Alito Moved to Undisclosed Location, Ginsburg’s Criticism of Roe v. Wade

Alito Moved to Undisclosed Location, Ginsburg’s Criticism of Roe v. Wade

WASHINGTON, DC – Justice Samuel Alito has reportedly been moved to an undisclosed location for safety, after leftwing radicals attempting to intimidate conservative justices for considering overruling Roe v. Wade, all in the name of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, listed conservative justices’ home addresses online.

Militant leftists, including a group called Ruth Sent Us, are trying to physically intimidate the five justices who are expected to sign the final version of Alito’s leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, with the other four justices being Clarence Thomas – appointed by Bush 41 – and the three justices appointed by Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

They are also reportedly targeting Chief Justice John Roberts. This shows the unreasoning nature of their ire, as Roberts’ questions during oral argument in Dobbs strongly suggest that he was exploring ways to uphold Mississippi’s ban without overruling Roe.

While doxing the justices’ home addresses is ostensibly so protesters can go to those justices’ homes to protest – which many Americans consider objectionable by itself, and in fact which violates federal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1507 – many others also note this could lead to violence, if an activist were to attack a justice or the justice’s family.

Reports around D.C. are that Alito and his family have been moved to an undisclosed location for safety, given the additional opposition he is facing as the writer of the leaked majority opinion.

Ruth Sent Us is a reference to the late Ruth Ginsburg, who passed away in 2020 and whom President Trump replaced with Justice Barrett. Claiming the late justice would condone such things is outrageous, given her friendships with conservative justices and that she was best friends with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who relentlessly tried to overrule Roe throughout his 30 years on the Supreme Court.

Scalia passed away in 2016 and was succeeded by Gorsuch after Trump took office in 2017. Before that, Scalia and Ginsburg vacationed together with their spouses, went to the opera together, and even sang together. They vigorously disagreed on legal issues in their dueling Supreme Court opinions, but they and their families were very close.

Moreover, Ginsburg criticized Roe v. Wade. She was certainly one of the foremost supporters of a constitutional right to abortion, but she repeatedly said that Roe was badly reasoned and vulnerable to harsh criticism. She even faulted where Roe suggested an abortion right could be found, as she would not even have agreed that a right to abortion is situated in the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Instead, Ginsburg believed that such a right was on firmer footing if it was guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

All that notwithstanding, Ruth Sent Us and other radicals are following a dangerous course by targeting the justices’ homes, given that such online hate maps have led to acts of terrorism.

In 2012, the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) posted such a map to the Family Research Council (FRC), a nonprofit that supports “faith, family, and freedom.” Leftwing activist Floyd Lee Corkins II used that map to find FRC’s offices with firearms and 100 rounds of ammunition, where he shot office manager Leo Johnson but was disarmed before he could assassinate the rest of the staff. Corkins was later convicted of domestic terrorism and imprisoned.

There is a difference between free speech to express opposition and trying to physically intimidate a judge to change his court decision out of fear for his or her family’s safety. President Joe Biden and his White House have still not condemned this crossing of that important line.

Ken Klukowski is a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department, and is a Breitbart News contributor.

Source

How Can Ketanji Brown Jackson Rule In Sex Discrimination Cases If She Can’t Define ‘Woman’?

How Can Ketanji Brown Jackson Rule In Sex Discrimination Cases If She Can’t Define ‘Woman’?

Judicial confirmation hearings are rarely illuminating. Since the introduction of television cameras, they mostly serve as a way for senators to say what they want their constituents to hear and for judicial nominees to say as little as possible. Nothing is learned, at least not on purpose.

But occasionally, we learn something by accident. At Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee asked a seemingly innocuous question: “Can you provide a definition of the word ‘woman’?”

The nominee was unable to do so.

It might seem like a question that goes more to politics than to the job of a judge, but when sex discrimination is frequently before the court — including as recently as last year in Bostock v. Clayton County — it behooves a judge to have some inkling about what “sex” means.

Blackburn’s questioning began with a reference to the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s policy of only admitting men by a 7-1 vote, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing the opinion of the court. (You can watch the testimony here, beginning at about 13:10:00.) Blackburn quoted from that opinion, specifically to Ginsburg’s point that “[p]hysical differences between men and women, however, are enduring: ‘[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both.’”

“Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg,” Blackburn asked, “that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?”

It sounds like a softball — even young children know that there are physical differences between men and women. Jackson knows it, too. Everyone in that room knows it. But she declined to admit it.

“I am not familiar with that particular quote or case,” she said, which strains credulity. Had she committed that line to memory? Probably not. But to be unfamiliar with a landmark case, the most consequential majority opinion Justice Ginsburg ever authored? United States v. Virginia was surely a topic of discussion in 1996, Jackson’s third year of law school, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. It beggars belief to say she was unfamiliar with it entirely.

The senator pressed on: “Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of ‘men and women’ as ‘male and female’?”

Judge Jackson demurred. “Again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how I interpret it.”

So Blackburn made it even simpler: “Can you provide a definition of the word ‘woman’?”

Again, Jackson pretended to not understand something that people have understood since the beginning of time.

“I can’t,” she said. “Not in this context, I’m not a biologist.”

The problem of pretending “sex” and “gender” are indefinable terms bears heavily on decades of anti-discrimination jurisprudence. Reading further into Ginsburg’s opinion in U.S. v. Virginia, it is clear that her arguments for legal equality between the sexes are nonetheless premised on the idea that there are two separate sexes.

‘Inherent differences’ between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration, but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual’s opportunity. Sex classifications may be used to compensate women ‘for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered,’ to ‘promot[e] equal employment opportunity,’ to advance full development of the talent and capacities of our Nation’s people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women. (internal citations omitted)

The Supreme Court in the VMI case noted that men and women were different and noted further there are circumstances in which that difference can matter in law. Ginsburg’s point, and that of the six justices who signed on to her opinion, was that it did not matter in that case.

The court’s ruling was not that there was no difference between men and women, or that there was a difference, but no one could possibly know what it was. It was that men and women do have “inherent differences,” but that the state should not discriminate on that basis absent some “exceedingly persuasive justification.”

To say that the definitions of “man” and “woman” are unknowable absent some expert training in biology is to turn the whole precedent on its head. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock last year already degraded this principle, stretching the meaning of sex discrimination to cover discriminating against someone based on “traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” But even that reimagining of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act still hangs on the idea that the classifications known as “man” and “woman” exist and are knowable.

If sex is unknowable, how can a law against sex discrimination be enforced? If an element of the offense is literally indefinable, the law must fail under the “void for vagueness” doctrine.

First explained in Connally v. General Construction Co.in 1926 and upheld many times since, the doctrine requires that laws be clear if they are not to violate the due process clause. A law “must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.” Therefore, “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.”

Until recently, no one would say that the definition of “woman” was something “so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning,” but Judge Jackson seems to disagree. What would this mean for our sex discrimination laws, where being unable to define “sex” makes it impossible to determine if the law even applies to a situation? If trial courts need to call expert “biologists” every time the subject of sex comes up, it is hard to see how justice can be done.

Fortunately, this is all a lie, not a genuine misunderstanding.

Judge Jackson, like Blackburn, is a woman, and she knows exactly what that means. Bowing down to the postmodernists’ mystery cult is something prominent people on the left deem politically necessary, but should a future Justice Jackson be called upon to decide a case in which a woman was paid less than a man for the same job, her recollection of the definition of “woman” will be magically restored.

But that does not solve the problem. The point of voiding vague laws is that the vagueness means they will be interpreted based on the whims of the state, not a neutral principle. Knowing what it means one moment and pretending not to the next introduces vagueness where none existed before, and with the same effect: the growth of arbitrary state power.

Ignoring facts leads to ignoring laws. Jackson’s misstep on this point undermined the idea that she would rule neutrally on politically sensitive matters and threatens to introduce a dangerous arbitrariness to American jurisprudence.


Source

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. 

Source

Aspen Institute’s ‘Commission On Information Disorder’ Silent On Couric’s Censorship Of RBG Quotes

Aspen Institute’s ‘Commission On Information Disorder’ Silent On Couric’s Censorship Of RBG Quotes

One might assume a journalist employing deliberate censorship to protect a major interview subject would be a topic of concern for a think tank commission on media disinformation. It might even be a scandal if the interviewer was the chair of said commission.

But members of the Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder, co-chaired by Katie Couric, remain silent on the major revelation this week that Couric purposefully omitted major condemnations of NFL kneeling protests during the national anthem from since-deceased U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In her forthcoming book, “Going There,” Couric revealed she selectively censored a 2016 interview with the 83-year-old justice to tone down Ginsburg’s criticisms because she “was elderly and probably didn’t understand the question.”

While the original interview in Yahoo News made headlines when Ginsburg called 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling stunt “dumb and disrespectful,” Couric left out the left-wing icon’s most seething criticism.

Below is an excerpt of what Couric said was omitted in an effort to “protect” the elderly justice, first reported by the Daily Mail:

[Not standing for the anthem shows a] contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life … which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from. … As they became older, they realize that this was youthful folly. And that’s what education is important.

“I think it’s a terrible thing to do,” Ginsburg added, a line included in the interview’s first publishing. “But I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

The Aspen Institute did not respond to The Federalist’s inquiries. Not a single member of its 18-person commission, except for Couric, has addressed the selective censorship publicly. Chris Krebs, another co-chair of the commission who, as a former senior Homeland Security official, proclaimed the 2020 election “the most secure in American history,” did not respond to a direct request for comment. Neither did commission member Kathryn Murdock, a left-wing megadonor and wife of Rupert Murdock’s liberal son, James.

According to campaign finance reports chronicled by OpenSecrets, the pair gave “roughly $12.2 million to federal committees, ranking 25th on OpenSecrets’ list of top donors.”

“She also donated $540,000 to the Democratic Future Forward PAC, and $300,000 to Unite the Country, a pro-Biden PAC,” reported the financial transparency outlet.

The Aspen Institute’s commission, which also includes Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, who believes the First Amendment is “bonkers,” is expected to soon release a report on disinformation with recommendations for government and corporate leaders to enhance their crusade on political dissidents.

Couric’s recent revelation that she concealed sharp criticism to pursue a preferred political narrative is on-brand for the longtime media activist.

In 2016, Couric deceptively edited a gun documentary to feature a silence stripped from an unrelated question to frame an awkward pause when asking a group of gun rights activists about background checks for buyers.

Now the author, who in January called for efforts to “deprogram” Republicans, is playing a pivotal role in the Aspen Institute’s anticipated report as co-chair of its commission.

Source

ACLU Rewrites Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote To Erase Women

ACLU Rewrites Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote To Erase Women

The American Civil Liberties Union erased women this week when it tweeted an altered quote from the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, removing the words “women,” “her,” and “she” from the quotation. 

The group replaced “women” with “person’s,” while removing “her” in favor of “their” and replacing “she” with “they.” 

Just one year ago, the ACLU posted the real, unadulterated quote on their website before mangling Ginsburg’s words to ensure that it complies with the latest rendition of gender theory. 

This incident is one more example of the left’s overarching campaign to erase women by undermining and distorting our understanding of gender as a scientifically legitimate category of classification.

The same phenomenon is present in the world of sports where the denial of objective reality has led to male athletes competing against female athletes, even in fighting sports, which has, to absolutely no one’s surprise, not only given the male athletes an unfair advantage but has actively endangered female opponents.

The altered quote follows leftists like Rep. Cori Bush using the phrase “birthing persons,” and the pro-abortion organization NARAL defending her use of the term, saying that “it’s not just cis-gender women can get pregnant and give birth.” The Biden administration even erased women when it replaced “mothers” with “birthing people” in maternal health guidance.

The perspective of many on the left isn’t just that men can be women or that women can be men, a proposition that itself is self-evidently ludicrous, but that men can be pregnant. When biological reality is detached from womanhood and femininity, women are inescapably devalued for their unique capability to create life. Now, that ability is supposedly conferred to men and all “persons.”

After decades of attempting to brand themselves as defenders of women and women’s rights this erasure of women by powerful figures and institutions on the left proves that their support for women, to the extent that it was ever anything more than a shrewd political or rhetorical tactic to begin with, entirely evaporates when it proves to be an obstacle to woke gender theory.

Source

GOP Sen. Marshall: Far-Left Trying to Gain Leverage over SCOTUS with Court-Packing Threat

GOP Sen. Marshall: Far-Left Trying to Gain Leverage over SCOTUS with Court-Packing Threat

Friday, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) discussed efforts from congressional Democrats to add more justices to the Supreme Court and how that reflected the power grabs underway from his counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

The freshman Kansas U.S. Senator told FBN host Matia Bartiromo it was creating dissension within Democrat ranks.

“Look, this is an attempt to a power grab by the extreme left,” Marshall said. “This is an example of President Biden kowtowing to his extreme left as well. The president himself once upon a time said this is a bonehead idea. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said nine is just fine. But what the far left is trying to do now is weaponize the Supreme Court. They’re trying to use this legislation to hold it over the head of the Supreme Court and tell them, look, if you don’t do what we want you to do, if you don’t make rulings the way we want it, then we’re going to dilute your power.”

“So I think that’s what this is all about,” he added. “A big fight going on there in their own party. It’s kind of fun to sit back and just watch them throw popcorn at each other.”

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Source

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.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)