Here's What Shocked a Former MSNBC Analyst About Erika Kirk's Heartbreaking Address
The ‘Progressive’ Left – The ‘Democratic’ Party – Has Shown You Exactly Who...
Spanberger Faces Questions As Chesterfield School Board Member Urged to Resign Over Charli...
Trustee Resigns As Oxford Union Faces Backlash After President-Elect Celebrates Charlie Ki...
South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson Introduces Bill to Re-Impose Jackson-Vanik Sanctions on Rus...
Discourse Over Violence
I Am a Yankee Doodle Dandy
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 285: Archaeology Proves King David a Historical Figure...
Pilots, Other Professionals Who Mocked Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Get Grounded
TMZ’s Harvey Levin Walks Back Staff's Applause for Kirk’s Death, Now Warns of...
18,000 New Chapters Apply Overnight After Erika Kirk's Speech
Maher Calls Bible 'Wicked'; Ben Shapiro Reminds Him He Was Born on Biblical...
David Hogg: 'Politicize the F*ck Out of My Death' to Push Gun Control...
Charlie Kirk to Be Honored with Stadium Memorial as Thousands Expected to Mourn...
Feds Probe Left-Wing Groups for Possible Ties to Charlie Kirk Killing as One...
Tipsheet

Abandon Ship: Dems Going Wobbly on Norms-Shattering Court Packing Scheme?

Why, it's only a terrible, republic-destabilizing, radical scheme that's strongly opposed by voters so strongly that fewer than one-in-five independents approve of it.  Why wouldn't Democrats want to dive headlong into that debate, especially when they clearly don't have the votes to even come close to passing it?  Chuck Schumer warned that "everything" would be "on the table" under a Democratic majority, but it looks like some of his rank-and-file members are awfully nervous about this issue.  As we noted recently, in addition to being wildly unpopular, court-packing is a powerfully unifying issue for Republicans and a divisive one among Democrats, whose base is hungry for the power grab.  John McCormack of National Review has been asking Democratic Senators what they think of court expansion, and quite a few of them seem...decidedly cool to even discussing it:

Advertisement
“I’m not persuaded yet, but, you know, we’ll just have to see,” said Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.). His fellow Virginian, Senator Mark Warner, said the Court-packing bill is “not where I’m headed.” Senator Jon Ossoff (D., Ga.) said of Markey’s bill: “It’s not something I’m currently advocating for.” “It’s not my issue for today,” said Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “I’ll take a look at it, but it’s not something that I’ve been pushing for,” said Senator Gary Peters (D., Mich.) … “I don’t support that,” New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen said of Markey’s bill. Asked if any Supreme Court rulings could get her to support it, Shaheen replied: “I can’t speculate on that.”

Quite a few empty dodges.  What should worry conservatives, of course, is that any or all of these Democrats punting on the issue as not a 'top priority' or whatever could very easily turn around and line up to ram court-packing through if they expand their majority in the future. Recall that most Senate Democrats were on the record, in writing, as outright opposed to touching the legislative filibuster during the Trump years -- then almost all of them flip-flopped the moment it was expedient to do so. I wouldn't count on many Democrats to stand against a norms-destroying escalation if they have the votes to execute it and get their way, even temporarily.  Someone who desperately wants voters to think that he would hold the line is Arizona's Mark Kelly, who faces re-election next year.  Kelly has been a partisan Democrat during his brief tenure in office thus far, but he's evidently anxious about how this issue might move votes in his purple state.  And thus, a claimed commitment:

Advertisement


The operating assumption of every Republican or independent voter should be that the nanosecond Democrats believe they have the votes to pack the Court, they'll try to do it.  Don't count on progressives to say "we can, but we shouldn't."  Speaking of which, every House Democrat -- including the 'moderates' -- just voted to make Washington DC a state.  The purpose is not representation or good governance.  It's about one thing only.  Power:


They could just propose enveloping most DC voters into Virginia or Maryland, which would solve the alleged "representation" concerns (setting aside the constitutional issue of DC statehood, which proponents often and tellingly overlook), but that's not good enough.  Because the point is to add two blue Senate seats.  Period.  I'll leave you with an easy rejoinder to the latest dumb SCOTUS "controversy" involving Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos