Connect with us

News

Bombshell Paper Shows Democrats Likely Won’t Regain Majority Control of Supreme Court Until 2065 – Unless They Expand It

Published

on

A newly-revised bombshell paper by four school law professors finds Democrats are unlikely to be able to regain majority control of the U.S. Supreme Court for four more decades, until 2065, unless they expand the number of justices on the nation’s highest court.

That finding follows weeks, and indeed years, worth of allegations of corruption against the conservative jurists themselves, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, the spouse of Chief Justice John Roberts, and earlier, Antonin Scalia.

Political strategist and former Media Matters vice president Jamison Foser notes this would mean “96 consecutive years of a Republican Supreme Court majority.”

“The Endgame of Court-Packing,” is a paper that “uses simulations based on assumptions about the results of elections, justice retirement, etc to predict what might happen with the Supreme Court’s composition for the next century,” notes one of its authors, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Professor Daniel Epps, a “a nationally recognized expert on the Supreme Court” according to his bio.

READ MORE: Clarence Thomas in 2001: Being a Supreme Court Justice Is ‘Not Worth Doing for What They Pay’

Revealing how just one decision can change the course of history, Epps on social media points to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on September 18, 2020 and was replaced just weeks later by Republican President Donald Trump, just before the election he lost.

Had Justice Ginsburg “retired under a D[emocratic] president (or had [Merrick] Garland been confirmed) Democrats would likely have retaken control by 2029, and would control the Court for about half of the next century,” Epps writes.

One of the paper’s authors, Harvard professor Maya Sen, frames their most concerning finding this way: “To bring this home,” she writes, “an 18 year old today will likely not see a Democratic-appointed majority on the Supreme Court probably until their 50s or 60s,” and, “people in their 40s right now will probably never see another Dem-appointed majority in their lifetimes.”

While the papers authors use the term “court-packing,” widely viewed as a negative expression of the concept of adding more justices to the nation’s highest court, the concept dates back at least as far as 1937, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a plan to expand the number of justices to possibly 15.

Rutgers Law School professor David Noll in October of 2020 wrote that Army Coney Barrett’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court “is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting.”

READ MORE: Watch: Dem Senator’s Viral Video Reveals Scalia Accepted Over 70 Undisclosed Gifts of Vacations Like Clarence Thomas

“If Democrats respond to the Barrett appointment by expanding the size of the Court, the immediate effect will be to further diminish the Court’s standing and make it hard for anyone to take the Supreme Court seriously,” he wrote, unaware of the corruption scandals that would be swirling around all the right-wing justices just a few years later.

“Paradoxically, I think that’s a good development. Restoring a sense of balance to the Court will require Republicans and Democrats to come together and agree on new rules for how justices are chosen and the kind of jurists who serve on the Court.”

Others have proposed expanding the Supreme Court to 13, which would make more sense because not would accurately reflect the number of federal circuits, which the Supreme Court justices oversee.

In 2021, four Democratic members of the House and Senate called for expanding the court by four seats.

“Republicans stole the Court’s majority, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation completing their crime spree,” Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) said in a statement that year. “Of all the damage Donald Trump did to our Constitution, this stands as one of his greatest travesties. Senate Republicans have politicized the Supreme Court, undermined its legitimacy, and threatened the rights of millions of Americans, especially people of color, women, and our immigrant communities.”

“Nine justices may have made sense in the nineteenth century when there were only nine circuits, and many of our most important federal laws—covering everything from civil rights, to antitrust, the internet, financial regulation, health care, immigration, and white collar crime—simply did not exist, and did not require adjudication by the Supreme Court,” said then-House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler. “But the logic behind having only nine justices is much weaker today, when there are 13 circuits. Thirteen justices for thirteen circuits is a sensible progression, and I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021.”

The 56-page paper‘s authors are Adam Chilton, University of Chicago – Law School; Daniel Epps, Washington University in St. Louis – School of Law; Kyle Rozema, Washington University in St. Louis – School of Law; and Maya Sen, Harvard University – Harvard Kennedy School (HKS).

 

 

Image: Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks via Flickr

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump Appears to Think Jeb Bush Was President: ‘He Got Us Into the Middle East’

Published

on

During a rally in South Carolina on Monday, Donald Trump appeared to confuse former Florida GOP Governor Jeb Bush with his brother, former President George W. Bush, while bragging to supporters how he beat him.

Jeb Bush, who was largely considered to be the default Republican Party nominee for the 2016 presidential election when he launched his campaign, dropped out in February of 2016 after the South Carolina primary.

“When I come here, everyone thought Bush was going to win,” Trump said, before claiming he was “up by about 50 points” over Bush. “They thought Bush because Bush was supposedly a military person.”

“You know what he was…He got us into the Middle East,” Trump claimed, wrongly. “How did that work out?”

READ MORE: ‘Isn’t Glock a Good Gun?’ Trump Asks Before Saying He Is Buying One – Campaign Forced to Deny He Did

“But they also thought that Bush might win. Jeb. Remember Jeb? He used the word ‘Jeb,’ he didn’t use the word ‘Bush,’ I said, ‘You mean he’s ashamed of the last name?’ and then they immediately started using the name Bush,” Trump claimed.

The ex-president went on to continue denigrating Jeb Bush, accusing him of bringing his mother to campaign with him.

“Remember,” Trump said, “he brought his mother, his wonderful mother who’s 94 years old and it was pouring and they’re wheeling her around and it’s raining and horrible. I said, ‘Who would do that your mother, 94 years old. How desperate are you to win?”

Media Matters’ Craig Harrington, commenting on Trump’s latest gaffe, observed: “In the past two weeks, Donald Trump has:

– Warned that Joe Biden might start ‘World War 2’
– Confused his 2016 election opponent (Hillary Clinton) with former President Barack Obama
– Confused his 2016 primary opponent (Jeb Bush) with former President George W. Bush.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Careening’ Toward ‘Risk of Political Violence’: Experts Sound Alarm After Trump Floats Executing His Former General

Continue Reading

News

Fulton County Judge in Trump Case Orders Jurors’ Identities and Images Must Be Protected

Published

on

The Fulton County Superior Court judge presiding over Georgia’s RICO, conspiracy, and election interference case against Donald Trump on Monday afternoon ordered the identities and images of all jurors and prospective jurors to remain secret, ordering they may only be referred to by a number.

“No person shall videotape, photograph, draw in a realistic or otherwise identifiable manner, or otherwise record images, statements, or conversations of jurors/prospective jurors in any manner” that would violate a Superior Court rule, Judge Scott McAfee ordered, “except that the jury foreperson’s announcement of the verdict or questions to the judge may be audio recorded.”

“Jurors or prospective jurors shall be identified by number only in court filings or in open court,” he added.

READ MORE: ‘Careening’ Toward ‘Risk of Political Violence’: Experts Sound Alarm After Trump Floats Executing His Former General

Judge McAfee also ordered no juror’s or prospective juror’s identity, “including names, addresses, telephone numbers, or identifying employment information” may be revealed.

MSNBC’s Katie Phang posted the order, and added: “Another important part of the Order: no responses from juror questionnaires or notes about jury selection shall be disclosed, unless permitted by the Court.”

Judge McAfee’s order comes after Donald Trump’s weekend of attacks on his former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley. Trump strongly suggested he should be executed for treason. Trump also strongly suggested he would target Comcast, NBC News, and MSNBC if he wins the 2024 presidential election.

Responding to the news, MSNBC’s Medhi Hasan observed, “We have just normalized the fact that the former president, and GOP presidential frontrunner, is basically a mob boss.”

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Isn’t Glock a Good Gun?’ Trump Asks Before Saying He Is Buying One – Campaign Forced to Deny He Did

Published

on

During a photo shoot at a South Carolina gun shop, Donald Trump posed with and then said he wanted to buy a Glock, asking if it is “a good gun.”

Some say it might be illegal to sell a gun to anyone under criminal indictment, and if he took the gun with him that too might be illegal. It was not clear if, despite saying he would, he actually bought the firearm. The Trump campaign initially said he had, although later backtracked on its claim, and deleted the social media post saying he had.

In the photo op (video below,) Trump posed with several people, including the Republican Attorney General of South Carolina, Alan Wilson, who has held that elected position since 2011.

“Trump’s spokesman announced that Trump bought a Glock today in South Carolina. He even posted video,” wrote former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob. “If Trump took the gun with him, that’s a federal crime since he’s under indictment. There’s also a law against selling a gun to someone under federal indictment like Trump.”

READ MORE: ‘Poof’: White House Mocks Stunned Fox News Host as GOP’s Impeachment Case Evaporates on Live Air

Reuters’ crime and justice reporter Brad Heath posted the federal laws that might apply, as well as Trump’s campaign spokesperson’s clip of the ex-president’s remarks, and his spokesperson saying, “President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!”

CNN analyst Stephen Gutowski, who writes about gun policy, added, “It would be a crime for him to actually buy this gun because he’s under felony indictment. Did he actually go through with this purchase?”

“People under felony indictments can’t ‘receive’ new firearms. That also means you can’t buy them,” he also wrote.

MSNBC anchor and legal contributor Katie Phang wrote, “I don’t know if he actually bought the gun. At least it didn’t happen in this video. Also, the Attorney General of South Carolina is in this video. Is he watching Trump commit a crime?”

But some pointed to a federal judge in Texas’ ruling from last year. Reuters reported, a “federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying firearms is unconstitutional.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.