Exactly. The Republican justification for both Garland and ACB is "the Constitution allows us to do it." This argument is PRECISELY as applicable to court expansion/reorganization and jurisdiction-stripping.
"Maximalist hardball for me, unilateral adherence to recent norms for thee" is not actually a principle
The thing is that the GOP had a good thing going with Roberts as the median vote -- overwhelmingly conservative results but very unlikely to trigger a hardball response. They decided to get greedy, and if that ends up with the Court blown up they have only themselves to blame
And Biden's answer -- Republicans have been packing the courts for 4 years, we'll see what happens after the election -- is perfectly reasonable. (Particularly since not only is nobody asking Trump about McConnell's 15-16 blockade, he openly boasted about it at the last debate!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Again, the idea that Republicans have any kind of commitment to a 9-person Court that would transcend their immediate partisan advantage is absolutely laughable. We don't even have to spectate. npr.org/2016/11/03/500…
Legislative priorities if Dems get trifecta in 2021 (ending the filibuster goes without saying): 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt HEROES Squared Relief Act 2. John Lewis Voting Rights Act 3. Cruz-McCain-McConnell Judicial Reform Act
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-…
Buried toward the end of the (excellent) Baker and Haberman dispatch from Trump’s disease-ridden bunker is this rather remarkable tacit concession lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/10/nyt-po…
The next step would be perhaps to assess WHY the Podesta emails ended up burying a objectively far more important story about Trump, but...there does some to be an emerging internal consensus that the political press blew it in 2016 wired.com/story/opinion-…
Amy Chozick deserves more credit than she's received for openly questioning why the media decided to make themselves collaborators with a ratfucking operation. She got a lot of flak from defensive colleagues at the time but she was right. lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/04/wikile…
Moreover, the Warren Court of the 50s did not have a liberal median vote. What Scot Powe calls "History's Warren Court" didn't happen until Frankfurter retired in 1962. The Warren Court ALWAYS represented a clear popular governing majority.
As Mark Graber once wrote, an entire generation of scholars have written about the Warren Court as if Barry Goldwater won a landslide in 1964
What Republicans are trying to do now -- install a Court majority to stop opposition majorities from governing for the foreseeable future -- has little precedent in American history, and EVERY TIME it's happened has precipitated a constitutional crisis lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/07/thomas…
Note as well that there is no way for the majority of Michigan citizens who support Whitmer's (perfectly lawful) orders to respond, because Michigan's legislature is gerrymandered to be permanently controlled by the state's Republican minority, with John Roberts's approval
And the invocation of long-discredited and dormant doctrines to obstruct state power *in the context of a pandemic* is particularly frightening. These judges are literally more reactionary than the Supreme Court of the Lochner era. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…