From WSJopinion: Even if it fails, the effort to intimidate the Supreme Court undermines judicial duty and independence, writes Philip Hamburger
Even if the size of the bench remains the same, intimidation diminishes the justices’ stature.
ByPhilip HamburgerApril 15, 2021 12:44 pm ETThe intimidation game has begun. President Biden announced last Friday the formation of a commission on reforming the Supreme Court, and Democrats in the House and Senate responded on Wednesday by announcing that a bill to add four justices to the high court is forthcoming. These are dangerous developments. Even if court packing ultimately fails, the effort to intimidate the Supreme Court will have dire consequences.
Progressives have long used threats to pressure the Supreme Court to back down from the Constitution. In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt’s allies hinted that the court shouldn’t reject expansion of the Interstate Commerce Act. According to my colleague Thomas Merrill, the “implied threat” included the possibility of “stripping the Court of jurisdiction over ICC matters or creating a specialized court.”
Such threats soon became standard practice. In 1909 commissioner Charles Prouty cautioned judges that if they questioned the ICC’s authority they would face popular protest that “would not stop until the Constitution itself had been so altered as to enable the people to deal properly with these public servants.” In 1912, running as the Progressive Party’s presidential nominee, Roosevelt campaigned on the recall of uncooperative judges and decisions. President Franklin D. Roosevelt went further and sought legislation to pack the Supreme Court. headtopics.com
Progressives never had to carry out their threats to get what they wanted. All they had to do was encourage judges to consider the advantages of judicial “restraint” and “deference” to the political branches. Unnerved by the bullying, some Supreme Court justices lost their courage. By holding back from overturning popular legislation, they thought they could “save the Court.”
In 2012’sNFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged the high court’s “reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation’s elected leaders.” It looked as if he took this “reticence” so far as to rewrite an unconstitutional statute, lest the court provoke progressive wrath. Yet his retreat encouraged the view that the court is open to political pressure. In flinching from their duty to follow the law, judges invite further intimidation.Read more: The Wall Street Journal »
NASA’s Perseverance Captures Video, Audio of Fourth Ingenuity Flight
Sounds of the Mars Helicopter’s whirring rotors add another new dimension to the historic project.
opinion 2016 the WSJ ignored Republicans obstruction of judicial nomination, essentially packing by reducing & skewing the number of justices Rs have already intimidated & undermined judiciary & its independence opinion Stop bullshitting WSJ! Stop it! What about the effort to overtly corrupt the Supreme Court? No answers yet as to how Kavanaugh’s debt and club memberships and whatnot were paid off! I am 10,000 miles away, but I can see through yr BS.
opinion The last Administration made sure this Court is now politicized.
Opinion | Congressional Democrats’ Court-Picking (Not Packing) SchemeFrom WSJopinion: Congress probably won’t pack the Supreme Court. But a court-picking provision poses a real threat to Americans' rights, writes Alan Gura. opinion yet more drivel from Murdoch land. opinion When the Republicans packed the Supreme Court, they did something much worse than court picking. opinion Wouldn’t more tax cuts for the rich fix this too?
Democrats' court-packing push haunted by 2016 'We Need Nine' campaignThe Democratic push to expand the Supreme Court has led to opponents resurfacing Democrats' 'We Need Nine' campaign in support of then-Judge Merrick Garland's confirmation, which emphasized the need for nine justices on the high court.
Opinion | Why Democrats' court-packing plan will backfireAdding seats to the high court would formalize the body's transformation into a social issues super legislature to the detriment of the republic. THINK Oh, an opinion piece from Washington Examiner: everything Democrats do is wrong and will backfire. But everything Mitch has done on court packing for the last 2 decades is legitimate and righteous. Gimme a break. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ THINK At the moment the US Supreme Court is a GOP club to last for 75 years and more..... Not a bad idea to want to add members (now that the Dems have SOME power) OR find a way to limit terms to, say, 20 years, than get some new judges in there. THINK Nah.
Opinion | How the Supreme Court Helped Create 'Driving While Black'Opinion: A reckoning with police violence must include a reckoning with how the nation’s highest court enabled it We need less “opinion” pieces in this world and more articles based on facts instead of subjective analysis Hard have justice with a corrupt system! What is JoeBiden doing about this ? Maybe it’s time for less speeches and more ACTION! Is it only White officers pulling over drivers of color? You also fail to mention that many of these driver’s own actions lead to the shooting. The most recent account was an accident and a tragedy but he also was responsible for creating the situation that lead to his death.
Opinion | The size of the court has always been a 'political hot potato'The argument that court expansion is unconstitutional is weak, transparently political — and most importantly, wrong. steve_vladeck Daily Anyone taking bets? Because if roles were reversed you know they would do exactly the same and more... steve_vladeck Daily REPUBLICANTS packed the Court just in the last 4 years. It's the Democrats turn. 🙂 steve_vladeck Daily