Leftists Demand 'UNPacking' SCOTUS...By Packing It

P. Gardner Goldsmith | July 7, 2023
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size


What’s unreal is, they tell us, real (i.e., catastrophic anthropogenic climate change). What’s involuntary is, they tell us, “voluntary” (i.e., taxation).

What’s up is, they tell us, “down” (i.e. prices, year-to-year).

And, following several major U.S. Supreme Court decisions last week (and over the past year) that did not comport with their expansive view of Executive Branch hegemony or general federal “power” to increase the socialist-fascist expansion of the U.S. government, they want changes. Indeed, after the SCOTUS majority offered some tepid, half-hearted tips of the hat to immutable, unalienable Natural Rights and federalism, high profile collectivists are claiming that the SCOTUS must be packed in order to, get this…“unpack it.”

Mairead Elordi writes for The Daily Wire:

“Democrats and liberals raged at the high court, some calling to expand the court’s bench to dilute the conservative majority, which was cemented by former President Donald Trump’s three conservative nominees.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said it would not be ‘extreme’ to add more justices.

‘Expanding the size of the Supreme Court isn’t extreme or unprecedented — but the opinions of this Court certainly are,’ Schiff wrote in a tweet Friday.”

Quite believable words, coming from a guy who in 2019 literally MADE UP a conversation he attributed to Donald Trump and a foreign head-of-state.

For those who are interested, Schiff also tweeted on June 30 that if he gets into the Senate, he will lead the charge to “unpack” the SCOTUS.


Related: Biden Dodges & Weaves In Bid To Continue Student Debt 'Forgiveness' | MRCTV

Which leads one to wonder why he, and other leftists, claim the court has been “packed” when, in fact, Donald Trump’s three appointments to the bench (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett) were nominated and seated in the same fashion as Joe Biden’s recent appointment, Ketanji Bown Jackson.

In fact, the question becomes more pressing as one sees more leftist politicians sing Schiff’s sour song.

Writes Elordi:

“Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said Sunday that packing the court should be on the table.

‘I think everything should be on the table,’ Pressley said on MSNBC, responding to a question about whether she supports adding more justices.

The Supreme Court ‘has been emboldened in rolling back the hands of time, undermining and rolling back what should be fundamental civil human rights,’ she added.

‘So everything should be on the table: reform and expansion,’ Pressley said.”

Evidently, Ms. Pressley is implying that the ability to end another human life is a “fundamental civil human right.” Of course, the overturning of “Roe” last year did nothing more than reaffirm that questions about the criminality and punishment of capital murder crime is, as the Founders designed it, up to the states, as long as those states “protect” all human beings equally once they establish those statutes. She can check the Fourteenth Amendment if she has time away from blathering to the public nonsense that might better remain unspoken.

Then there’s the oft-too-loud AOC, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez…

“Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has previously called for expanding the Supreme Court, and on Sunday she called for checking the court’s power.

‘The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court,’ Ocasio-Cortez said Sunday on CNN.”

Just how “democracy” – i.e. majority/gang rule over peaceful individuals – equates to a supposedly “constitutionally limited confederation of states” that send “representatives” and “senators” to D.C. who, we’re told, will conform to the limits of that “Constitution”? Enjoy figuring that out.

And remember, it’s not “packing” the Court. Trump “packed” the Court, despite not deviating from the same procedures the Dems often cite as necessary for nominating and then approving the black-robed Delphic geniuses who will “interpret” the Constitution and possibly deal away our Natural Rights.

You, honest American, are wrong. Yes, you, who thought that “court-packing” was akin to what leftist Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to do in the late 1930s  – expanding the size of the court to allow his clearly unconstitutional “Social Security” and other anti-constitutional schemes survive legal challenge and, when that wasn’t deemed acceptable, trying to get elderly Justices to retire, so he could replace them with ideological FDR accomplices – you are off—base.

Related: Biden 'Justice' Dept. Scrambles To Keep Attacking Gun Rights - Courts Strike Down Restrictions | MRCTV

Today, “packing” the court is nominating and seeing appointed those nominees that the lefties do not like, and when the majority on the bench rule, say, that the abortion issue is a state prerogative, or that racist, but euphemistically titled “affirmative action” should be not eliminated by government or government-subsidized colleges, but merely curtailed, or that a business owner should be able to decide whether her religious beliefs come before accepting a possible customer’s wishes – somehow those majority decisions are a result of “packing.”

At least one high-profile leftist admitted the truth hiding behind all this DC elite bluster. Elordi notes that:

“Some liberal academics called to pack the court as well.

‘Biden Won’t Pack the Supreme Court, and It’s Killing Democracy,’ read the headline of a Friday Newsweek opinion article by David Faris, an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University in the Chicago area.

‘With or without Biden, court expansion must become a litmus test for any Democrat who wants to pursue federal office,’ Faris wrote. ‘The alternative is to spend the next 15 Junes learning which part of American public life has been needlessly upended by corrupt, originalist fanatics…’”

Fanatics. You read that right. But remember, reading something right, as it was originally written and intended to be understood? That’s actually a bad thing if it does not allow the expansion of the state and if it doesn't increase the power of central political authorities over states and the individual human beings therein. Perhaps we can just “interpret” Mr. Faris’ words to mean something completely contrary to what he intended.

If we read his words as he DID intend them to be read, does that mean we are “originalist fanatics?”

Such questions often are academic, for conversation… but when the question of “originalism” is tied to how our Natural Rights will or will not be respected? Perhaps being focused on this battle of words and of “court-packing” is important.

Follow MRCTV on Twitter!