One justice for every circuit -- just upholding the original public understanding of 1869
https://twitter.com/BillMurphyJr/status/1314404366053498880
And, of course, it was also the consensus understanding of the Reconstruction Congress that federal courts should allow popular majorities to govern and if they didn't the use of Article III powers to discipline the courts was appropriate lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/07/thomas…
For Dems to expand the Court in 2021 would be consistent with historical norms, not a departure. There are zero (0) cases in American history of a minority faction successfully using the Supreme Court to prevent a majority coalition from governing: lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/10/there-…
Generally, the Supreme Court has been a coalition partner, which is how judicial review became entrenched. In the three major times when it wasn't (early Jefferson, Civil War/Reconstruction, New Deal) is was disciplined by Congress or preemptively caved to threats of discipline.
A party that will have lost the popular vote in 7 of 8 presidential elections by this time next month trying to impose its will on a governing majority through the federal judiciary is transparently illegitimate, and no majority coalition in American history has ever accepted it
And, again, Republicans don't have any principled commitment to a 9-person Court. Give Hillary Clinton 100,000 votes in PA/MI/WI and we would have a seven-member Court right now, and it's immaterial whether the size of the Court is manipulated by Article II or Article III
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
