{"id":1131436,"date":"2021-12-18T23:04:18","date_gmt":"2021-12-19T04:04:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1131436"},"modified":"2021-12-18T23:04:30","modified_gmt":"2021-12-19T04:04:30","slug":"pinkerton-democrats-use-the-threat-of-court-packing-to-intimidate-the-supreme-court-from-overturning-roe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/pinkerton-democrats-use-the-threat-of-court-packing-to-intimidate-the-supreme-court-from-overturning-roe\/","title":{"rendered":"Pinkerton: Democrats Use the Threat of Court-Packing to Intimidate the Supreme Court from Overturning Roe"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">30<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fpinkerton-democrats-use-the-threat-of-court-packing-to-intimidate-the-supreme-court-from-overturning-roe%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1131436&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><b>The Democrats\u2019 Court-Packing Threat<\/b><\/p>\n<p>Today, we\u2019re getting a real-time lesson in how Washington works.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>It\u2019s an <i>ongoing drama<\/i>.&nbsp;We can all observe as the Democrats and their allies in the Main Stream Media seek to intimidate the Supreme Court, trying to scare it away from issuing conservative rulings.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"D-ROS-B1\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B1\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"gmxrevmore\" class=\"H\"><\/figure>\n<p>Democrats are saying, in effect, <i>That\u2019s a nice Supreme Court ya got there.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>Shame if anything were to happen to it.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p>Needless to say, this is not how our system is supposed to work. According to our Constitution, the judicial branch\u2014of which the Supreme Court is the head\u2014is intended to be an independent and equal branch of the federal government. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As James Madison wrote in <a href=\"https:\/\/avalon.law.yale.edu\/18th_century\/fed51.asp\"><i>Federalist 51<\/i><\/a>\u2014part of a series of pamphlets from 1787-1788 that have shaped our understanding of the Constitution ever since\u2014the essence of our republican system \u201cconsists in giving to those who administer each [branch], the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B2\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<p>Yet these days, two branches of the federal government, the executive and the legislative\u2014both currently controlled by Democrats\u2014are encroaching&nbsp;hard&nbsp;on the Court, which currently consists of six Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>This Democratic pressure campaign could succeed because, as we\u2019ll see later on, it\u2019s succeeded before. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_19096442\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" readability=\"44\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-19096442\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/GettyImages-1232480514.jpg\" alt width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Seated from left: Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left: Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (Erin Schaff\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The flashpoint issue is abortion.<\/p>\n<p>On December 1, the case of <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/i> was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization\/\">argued<\/a> before the Court.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>This is the case that goes right to the heart of the debate over whether or not <i>Roe v. Wade<\/i>, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, was rightly decided.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>Which is to say, for abortion opponents and proponents alike, it\u2019s a big deal.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Pro-abortion liberals are worried that the <i>Dobbs<\/i> case will go against them.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>Here\u2019s a sampling of MSM headlines that liberals have been reading: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/opinion\/articles\/2021-12-01\/dobbs-v-jackson-supreme-court-will-likely-overturn-roe-v-wade\">\u201cRoe v. Wade Is Probably Doomed,\u201d<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2021\/12\/1\/22811837\/supreme-court-roe-wade-abortion-doomed-jackson-womens-health-dobbs-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts\">\u201cIt sure sounds like Roe v. Wade is doomed,\u201d<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2021\/11\/30\/politics\/roe-wade-abortion-supreme-court-what-matters\/index.html\">\u201cPrepare for a post-Roe v. Wade reality.\u201d<\/a><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Yes, liberals are fearful.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>And yet they\u2019re also <i>resourceful<\/i>, and so they\u2019re calling upon their allies, especially within the MSM, to help.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>Specifically, the mission is to scare the Supreme Court away from voting to limit <i>Roe<\/i>.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B3\" class=\"a8d adSo\"><\/figure>\n<p>And so isn\u2019t it <i>interesting<\/i> that on December 3, the<i> Washington Post<\/i> bannered this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/senators-overhaul-supreme-court\/2021\/12\/02\/efee5458-5374-11ec-8927-c396fa861a71_story.html\">headline<\/a>: \u201cMore Democratic senators are willing to weigh changes to Supreme Court.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>The article charged right in: \u201cThis week\u2019s Supreme Court argument on abortion has accelerated an urgency among Senate Democrats to fundamentally alter how the court operates.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>According to the <i>Post<\/i>, possible alterations include expanding the roster of the court, which is currently, of course, nine justices.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>As the article said, \u201ca growing faction\u201d of Democratic senators \u201csay they are now prepared to consider such moves.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure id=\"D-ROS-B2\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<p>Then, on December 15, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) came out for expanding the Court to 13 justices, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.huffpost.com\/entry\/elizabeth-warren-supreme-court-expansion_n_61ba18e2e4b03f82dd58f7da\">declaring<\/a>, \u201cI come to this conclusion because I believe the current Court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.\u201d Of course, what Warren really means is that she wants a <em>Democratic<\/em> majority on the Court; the addition of four new justices, appointed by Joe Biden, would turn the current 6:3 conservative majority into a 7:6 liberal majority.<\/p>\n<p>So we can see:The idea of changing the court\u2014which critics call <i>court-packing<\/i>\u2014is in play.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>The high Court\u2019s decision on <i>Dobbs<\/i> probably won\u2019t come till June; and so between now and then, there\u2019s plenty of time for Democrats to hammer their point about packing the Court. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_19096466\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" readability=\"39\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-19096466\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/GettyImages-1236933310.jpg\" alt width=\"1920\" height=\"1334\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Pro-abortion and pro-life activists demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2021, as the Court hears oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health case that could potentially overturn the Court\u2019s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. (OLIVIER DOULIERY\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"attachment_19096474\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" readability=\"38\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-19096474\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/GettyImages-1356616300.jpg\" alt width=\"1920\" height=\"1251\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Pro-abortion activists hold photos of U.S. Supreme Court justices as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 1, 2021, in Washington, DC, as the Court hears arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health. (Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"attachment_19096482\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" readability=\"37\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-19096482\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/GettyImages-1356661556.jpg\" alt width=\"1920\" height=\"1204\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">A pro-abortion activist holds a sign during the Women\u2019s March protest on the steps of the the U.S. Supreme Court on December 1, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Leigh Vogel\/Getty Images for Women\u2019s March Inc)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>In fact, Democrats have been hammering for a long time, ever since Republicans started putting real conservatives on the Court.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>For instance, during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign, several of the Democratic hopefuls\u2014including then-Sen. Kamala Harris\u2014<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/graphics\/politics\/policy-2020\/voting-changes\/supreme-court-packing\/\">declared<\/a> that they were \u201copen to\u201d the idea of court-packing. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; Given this hammer-campaign, it\u2019s no&nbsp;surprise that public approval for the Court has <a href=\"https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/354908\/approval-supreme-court-down-new-low.aspx\">fallen sharply<\/a>.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B4\" class=\"a8d adSo\"><\/figure>\n<p>Notably, as a presidential candidate, Joe Biden said he was opposed to court-packing. &nbsp;However, once in office, on April 9, President Biden created a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/pcscotus\/\">commission<\/a> to study the Court, including \u201cthe membership and size of the Court.\u201d <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>To goose things along further, a few days later, on April 15, Democrats in Congress, including Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/supreme-court\/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132\">proposed<\/a> to enlarge the Court to 13 justices.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>So that would be four new justices picked by Biden, enough to submerge the current 6:3 conservative majority into a 7:6 liberal majority.<\/p>\n<p>In September, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mediaite.com\/news\/wh-spox-karine-jean-pierre-details-steps-to-fight-bizarre-texas-abortion-law-biden-wants-to-see-action\/\">told reporters<\/a> that the administration was so concerned about the possible actions of the Court on abortion that the White House Gender Policy Council (which this author had previously written about <a href=\"https:\/\/www.breitbart.com\/politics\/2021\/10\/30\/pinkerton-bidens-great-reset-comes-to-the-nearest-bathroom\/\">here<\/a>) had been tasked to ponder possible presidential options:<\/p>\n<blockquote readability=\"10\">\n<p>And so, on the table, we\u2019re looking at legislative actions\u2014what are the best legislative actions, what are the actions that the administration itself can do.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>[Biden] wants to see action and remains committed to that.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In other words, \u201cdevout Catholic\u201d Joe Biden is going to do all he can to <i>protect<\/i> abortion, including at least opening the door to the possibility of changing the Court. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, other cases piling up before the Court include issues galvanizing to both left and right, such as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2021\/10\/in-major-second-amendment-case-court-will-review-limits-on-carrying-a-concealed-gun-in-public\/\">gun control<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-deny-challenge-to-harvards-admission-policies-11639008950\">affirmative action<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/12\/08\/us\/politics\/supreme-court-religious-schools-maine.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&amp;smtyp=cur\">religious education<\/a>.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Now it should be noted that on December 6, that Biden commission on the Supreme Court came back with <a href=\"https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/12\/06\/1061959400\/bidens-supreme-court-commission-releases-draft-report\">no recommendation<\/a> on court-packing, although it did flirt with other possibilities, such as term limits for justices, such that each president would get at least one appointment.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; We can call that \u201ccourt-packing lite.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Moreover, among the most vocal members of the commission were some who clearly still want to outright pack the Court.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>For instance, Nancy Gertner of Harvard Law School, was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/12\/07\/us\/politics\/supreme-court-packing-expansion.html\">quoted<\/a> in <i>The New York Times<\/i> saying of possible changes, \u201cThis is a uniquely perilous moment that requires a unique response.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>Gertner added, \u201cWhatever the costs of expansion in the short term, I believe, will be more than counterbalanced by the real benefits to judicial independence and to our democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So we can see: Plenty of Democrats haven\u2019t given up on court-packing. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, the MSM drumbeat against the conservative-dominated Court continues.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>On December 10, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mediaite.com\/news\/jeffrey-toobin-warns-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-foretells-radical-changes-electing-trump-had-a-very-big-consequence\/\">said<\/a>, \u201cThe Supreme Court may yet address affirmative action .<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>. .<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>the conservatives have wanted to end affirmative action.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>Conservatives have wanted to expand the understanding of the Second Amendment to ban most forms of gun control.\u201d Toobin added this warning to fellow liberals: \u201cThese are all issues where the Supreme Court appears to be making radical changes in what our understanding of the Constitution means.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So of necessity, friends of an independent judiciary have had to step up to counter the lefty drumbeat. &nbsp;George Washington University law professor <a href=\"https:\/\/jonathanturley.org\/2021\/12\/16\/destroying-the-court-to-save-it-warren-calls-for-packing-the-supreme-court-with-a-liberal-majority\/\">Jonathan Turley<\/a>, for example, calls Warren\u2019s proposal \u201cperfectly Orwellian.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Fortunately, too, Constitution-minded Republicans have also joined in the counter-drumbeat. &nbsp;On December 15, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) devoted her <a href=\"https:\/\/yorknewstimes.com\/opinion\/the-case-against-court-packing\/article_91baa33e-5ce6-11ec-9187-87e0b07081cd.html\">weekly column<\/a> to the danger. &nbsp;As she pointed out,&nbsp;court-packing is a common tactic in dictatorships:<\/p>\n<blockquote readability=\"7\">\n<p>In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez cemented support for his socialist policies by expanding the country\u2019s Supreme Tribunal of Justice from 20 members to 32 back in 2004.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>And how\u2019d that work out for Venezuela?<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_19096522\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" readability=\"37\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-19096522\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/GettyImages-1357748612.jpg\" alt width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Left-wing activists unfurl a banner in front of the White House calling on President Biden to expand (or pack) the Supreme Court on December 7, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Paul Morigi\/Getty Images for Take Back The Court)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><b>Court-Packing: The First Attempt<\/b><\/p>\n<p>As it happens, the Democrats have been down this court-packing road before\u2014and in fact, the 85th anniversary is coming up early next year. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Back on February 4, 1937, the 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, announced his plan for expanding the Supreme Court.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>Roosevelt was confident he would get his way. He had just been re-elected in a massive landslide, carrying 46 of the 48 states; moreover, the Democrats boasted a 76:16 majority over the Republicans in the Senate, and a 334:88 majority in the House.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>So FDR had plenty of reason to feel that he was on top of the world.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Yet in his first term, Roosevelt had been frustrated, because the Supreme Court\u2019s conservative majority had <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1900-1940\/295us495\">invalidated<\/a> various measures of his New Deal agenda.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>The most notable of these was the 1935 case of <i>A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corporation <\/i><i>v.<\/i><i> United States, <\/i>in which the Court held the National Industrial Recovery Act, the centerpiece of the New Deal, to be unconstitutional.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>So now, in 1937, thumping electoral mandate in hand, FDR thought that he had both the right, and the power, to \u201cfix\u201d the Court by expanding it to as many as 15 justices. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>As the president <a href=\"https:\/\/millercenter.org\/the-presidency\/presidential-speeches\/march-9-1937-fireside-chat-9-court-packing\">said<\/a> in a nationwide radio address on March 9, 1937:<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote readability=\"11\">\n<p>Last Thursday I described the American form of Government as a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government\u2014the Congress, the Executive and the Courts.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>So that was FDR\u2019s beef: the Court was not cooperating with the other two federal branches\u2014or put the matter more bluntly, the Court was not doing as the president wished.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>Of course, as we have seen, the constitutional role of the judiciary is <i>supposed<\/i> to be independence, not team play.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>And yet FDR, riding high, thought he knew better.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Bur soon the president\u2019s hubris was laid low.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>Yes, the country had re-elected FDR as <i>president<\/i>, but not as <i>dictator<\/i>.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>Mindful of Madisonian constitutional principle, critics labeled the White House plan as \u201ccourt-packing.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>The label stuck, and the public opinion erupted.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>William Allen White, a prominent newspaper editorialist, wrote that for the first time, opposition to Roosevelt was coming \u201cnot from the plug hat [top hat] section but from the grass roots.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>And a sympathetic political biographer, James McGregor Burns, wrote in his 1956 book, <i>Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox,<\/i> \u201cThe proposal at the outset split the American people neatly in half [it was] disturbing to people who wanted law and order.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Republicans immediately declared their opposition to the court-packing plan. Yet given the lopsided Democratic majorities in the 75th Congress, it didn\u2019t much matter what GOP lawmakers thought. But what <i>did<\/i> matter was the opposition of many Democratic lawmakers, like, for example, Sen. Carter Glass of Virginia, who said the plan was \u201ccompletely destitute of all moral understanding.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Crucially, the Democratic chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, Sen. Henry Ashurst of Arizona and Rep. Hatton Sumners of Texas, were opposed.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, FDR\u2019s vice president, John Nance Garner, a former speaker of the house who, as vice president, served as president of the Senate, chose to move back to Texas rather than help the administration in its legislative fight.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, the dean of the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court, Justice Louis Brandeis, made known his opposition.<\/p>\n<p>Confronted with this opposing buzzsaw, the court-packing plan faltered. By August of 1937, it was a dead letter and an embarrassing defeat for the president. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_14522677\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" readability=\"35\"><a href=\"https:\/\/media.breitbart.com\/media\/2020\/09\/AP_370206063.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-14522677\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/AP_370206063-771x1024-1.jpg\" alt=\"This editorial cartoon depicts President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court, Feb. 6, 1937. (AP Photo)\" width=\"771\" height=\"1024\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">This February 6, 1937, editorial cartoon depicts President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Supreme Court. (AP Photo)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"attachment_14522692\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" readability=\"37\"><a href=\"https:\/\/media.breitbart.com\/media\/2020\/09\/GettyImages-96743822.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-14522692\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/GettyImages-96743822-931x1024-1.jpg\" alt=\"Political cartoon with the caption &#039;Do We Want A Ventriloquist Act In The Supreme Court?&#039; The cartoon, a criticism of FDR&#039;s New Deal, depicts President Franklin D. Roosevelt with six new judges likely to be FDR puppets. USA, 14 February 1937. (Photo by Fotosearch\/Getty Images).\" width=\"931\" height=\"1024\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Editorial cartoon with the caption \u201cDo We Want A Ventriloquist Act In The Supreme Court?\u201d The cartoon, a criticism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt\u2019s New Deal, depicts the president with six new judges likely to be FDR puppets. February 14, 1937. (Fotosearch\/Getty Images).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><b>Winning by Losing<\/b><\/p>\n<p>Yet here\u2019s the thing: Although Roosevelt\u2019s court-packing plan failed as a matter of legislation, it <i>succeeded<\/i> in throwing a scare into the Court.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>Thus the same Court that had regularly voted against the constitutionality of New Deal legislation in Roosevelt\u2019s <i>first<\/i> term now flipped and routinely affirmed its constitutionality in his <i>second<\/i> term.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In the <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20110629194203\/http:\/\/www.historycooperative.org\/journals\/ahr\/110.4\/kalman.html\">words<\/a> of legal historian Laura Kalman, \u201cThe Court dramatically changed course during the \u2018constitutional revolution of 1937\u2019 because of the threat posed by the 1936 election and\/or the court-packing plan.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>And she quoted another historian, William Leuchtenberg, adding that Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), a former Republican governor and presidential nominee, was \u201ca very adroit politician and also a man with a sense of the need to preserve the integrity of the Court as an institution.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>And so Hughes made \u201ca strategic retreat<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>. . . largely in response to the court-packing plan.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>The result was the Court\u2019s \u201castonishing about-face.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Thus in April 1937, when it was still unclear whether or not FDR\u2019s court-packing case would succeed, the Supreme Court, in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1900-1940\/301us1\">case<\/a> of <i>National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &amp; Laughlin Steel Corporation<\/i>, affirmed the National Labor Relations Act.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>This, case, concerning economic regulation and worker rights, was a near-total reversal of the Court\u2019s opinion on the <i>Schechter<\/i> case, from just two years earlier.<\/p>\n<p>An oft-heard quip, first uttered by Oklahoma humorist Cal Tinney, was that the Court had made \u201cThe switch in time that saved nine.\u201d<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>(That was a play on the folk saying, \u201cA stitch in time saves nine.\u201d) &nbsp;<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">And so, in the <a href=\"https:\/\/scholarship.law.stjohns.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&amp;context=faculty_publications\">words<\/a> of law professor John Q. Barrett, FDR&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u201c\u2019lost the battle\u2019 but nonetheless \u2018won the war\u2019 against the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p>So if we skip back to the present day, what will happen now?<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>Will today\u2019s Court bend, once again, in the face of Democratic pressure?<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; <\/span>Chief Justice John Roberts, to name the most important of the nine, has <a href=\"https:\/\/fivethirtyeight.com\/features\/roberts-is-the-new-swing-justice-that-doesnt-mean-hes-becoming-more-liberal\/\">proven<\/a> himself to be the most \u201cpolitical,\u201d that is, the most mindful of political threats to the Court\u2019s reputation and power. &nbsp;After all, the Court is acutely aware that it has no enforcement power in and of itself; the other two branches must agree to bound by its decisions. &nbsp;And so if the Democrats say that the Court is getting out of line, well, maybe in Roberts\u2019 mind the Democrats have to be listened to. &nbsp;In fact, Roberts may already be <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/chief-justice-john-roberts-warns-supreme-court-over-texas-abortion-n1285747\">bending a little<\/a>.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp; &nbsp;Let\u2019s never kid ourselves: pressure campaigns in work.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>So what to do? &nbsp;Sen. Fischer and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have a <a href=\"https:\/\/constitutioncenter.org\/blog\/packing-the-supreme-court-explained\">good idea<\/a>: Let\u2019s enact a constitutional amendment to fix forever the number of justices on the Court at nine.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span>That would eliminate the possibility of court-packing, and further enshrine James Madison\u2019s vision of a separate and distinct judicial branch.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00a0The Democrats\u2019 Court-Packing Threat Today, we\u2019re getting a real-time lesson in how Washington works.\u00a0It\u2019s an ongoing drama.\u00a0We can all observe as the Democrats and their allies in the Main Stream &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":135,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1131436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1131436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/135"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1131436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1131436\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1131436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1131436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1131436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}