News
Bombshell Paper Shows Democrats Likely Won’t Regain Majority Control of Supreme Court Until 2065 – Unless They Expand It
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.”
“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
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.
 |
House Oversight Republicans held a contempt of Congress hearing for Attorney General Merrick Garland while lawmakers allegedly were drinking alcohol and acting “pretty ugly” during Thursday night’s proceedings. Now, they are the ones accused of behavior “embarrassing to our institution” by Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who wants an investigation.
“Members of the panel ultimately advanced a contempt of Congress resolution against Attorney General Merrick Garland on a party-line vote, but the far more striking takeaway was the personal attacks and theatrics lobbed between lawmakers in both parties — as Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) struggled unsuccessfully to gain control for more than an hour,” Politico reported Friday, adding: “both Republicans and Democrats acknowledged some members had been drinking that evening.”
Who was drinking remains a secret.
“A House Republican described the hearing as ’embarrassing’ and ‘a four -alarm dumpster fire,'” Axios reported. “The session quickly devolved into chaos, with Democrats blasting the GOP for postponing the hearing so several members could visit former President Trump’s trial and Republicans heckling them in response.”
One Democrat during the hearing spoke up.
READ MORE: Why Alito’s ‘Stop the Steal’ Flag Story Just Fell Apart
Ranking Member Raskin “said it was ’embarrassing to our institution’ and that he ‘constantly’ instructs his members to maintain a ‘high level of dignity and respect and decorum.'”
“We have some members in the room who are drinking inside the hearing room … who are not on this committee,” alleged Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM).
The Hill adds that Congressman Raskin said, “I didn’t see the drinking,” and that “the gentlelady from New Mexico, Melanie Stansbury raised it, she said there are members drinking in the room, and that’s something that is worth investigating if there was in fact drinking taking place.”
One unnamed House Republican told Axios, “This place is so stupid.”
The evening’s events quickly took a bad turn when U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), violating decorum, interrupted Ranking Member Raskin barely 30 seconds into his remarks.
Watch below or at this link.
READ MORE: ‘Partisan Insurrectionist’: Calls Mount for Alito’s Ouster After ‘Stop the Steal’ Scandal
The State of New York’s prosecution of Donald Trump is nearing it end, as Judge Juan Merchan announced late Thursday afternoon final arguments could begin on Tuesday. But one question remains: Will the ex-president who is facing 34 felony charges in the election interference, falsification of business records, and hush money cover-up case, testify in his defense?
Just over one month ago Trump was asked that question. He quickly responded, “Yeah I would testify, absolutely.”
Reporter: “Do you plan to testify at your trial?”
Trump: “Yeah, I would testify, absolutely, it’s a scam.” pic.twitter.com/00uKFjeWhl
— Los Angeles Magazine (@LAmag) April 12, 2024
Trump appeared resolved.
READ MORE: Ex-Florida GOP Chair’s Efforts to Recruit 3-Way Partners for Anti-LGBTQ Wife Revealed: Report
“I’m testifying. I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there is no case,” he said, as NBC News reported.
NBC added last week that Trump “told Newsmax two weeks ago that he would testify ‘if necessary,’ and on Tuesday he said in an interview with Spectrum News 1 Wisconsin that he would ‘probably’ take the stand, adding that he ‘would like to.'”
But when Judge Merchan asked Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney, on Thursday, the answer was very different.
“That’s another decision that we need to think through,” he said, according to the Associated Press.
But Politico’s Erica Orden reported, “Blanche says Trump hasn’t made a final decision about whether to testify.”
Last week, as the question of Trump’s testifying loomed large, U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) insisted he would not.
“It’s over. Donald Trump has a right to not testify. Yet he PROMISED he would. Now it’s clear he won’t. The jury can’t consider this. But you can. He is chickenshit and you should conclude he’s guilty as hell.”
On Wednesday, attorney George Conway addressed the topic, saying, “If he doesn’t testify, it’s because he’s scared.”
He also said, “in a million years, I would never tell him to testify. I would tell him not to testify.”
Watch the video above or at this link.
READ MORE: Trump Wails His Judge Was Appointed by ‘Democrat Politicians’ – That’s False
A stunning police report reveals how Christian Ziegler, the now-ousted Florida Republican Party chair, would head out to bars to scope out and recruit women as possible three-way sex partners for himself and his stridently anti-LGBTQ wife, Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler.
The disgraced Florida power couple’s ménage à trois sex scandal made national headlines after an accusation of rape against Christian Ziegler came from one of their three-way sexual partners, an allegation he denied. After an investigation no charges were filed.
Christian Ziegler lost his high-paying job as the Florida GOP chairman, but his wife Bridget has refused to resign from her elected position on a school board, as well as from her position on the state board that now oversees the Walt Disney World special district. Bridget Ziegler, who is seen as an architect of Governor Ron DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” law, reportedly is best friends with Florida First Lady Casey DeSantis, and was appointed to the special district role by the Florida GOP governor.
The Sarasota Police Dept. report, according to the Florida Trident, “recounts how Christian Ziegler went ‘on the prowl’ in bars for women to bring home to Bridget, a Sarasota County School Board member who has backed a number of anti-LGBTQ measures at both the state and local level, for threesome encounters. While at the bars, Christian would surreptitiously photograph prospective women and text the photos to Bridget for approval, according to the report.”
READ MORE: ‘Mouths of Sauron’: Critics Blast ‘Mobster Tactic’ of Trump Surrogates ‘Violating’ Gag Order
Some of the details are salacious.
“There were numerous text messages between Bridget and Christian where they are on the prowl for a female and Bridget is directing him to numerous different bars in search of a female that they are both interested in,” the report reads, according to The Trident. “During these conversations Christian is secretly taking photographs of women in the bars and sending them to Bridget asking her if she wants this one or that one. Bridget is telling him to pretend to take pictures of his beer, so they don’t see him taking pictures of them. She tells him ‘Don’t come home until your dick is wet.’”
The Zieglers are in court trying to block the release of the text messages and other media, alleging in a lawsuit against the Sarasota Police Dept. and the State Attorney’s Office that “release of those records would cause ‘great humiliation and harm to their individual reputations’ if released and therefore should be destroyed.”
“The suit specifically addresses the contents of Christian Ziegler’s cell phone, his social media accounts, web browsing history, and the video he made of the sexual encounter with the alleged rape victim,” the Trident reports.
Meanwhile, despite her own actions and after months of laying low, Bridget Ziegler is back on her anti-LGBTQ crusade.
“At last week’s school board meeting, Ziegler introduced a highly contentious resolution to ignore protections for LGBTQ students afforded by a new federal Title IX rule,” the Trident also reports. “The resolution, which followed a DeSantis legal challenge to Title IX at the state level, claims the new rule would cause ‘disastrous impacts to girls and women’s safety in restrooms, locker rooms, and sports.’ It passed by a 4-1 vote despite the fact it could lead to a federal investigation, expensive litigation, and the loss to the school district of roughly $50 million in federal funds.”
READ MORE: Trump Appears to Violate Gag Order After Judge Threatened ‘Incarceration’
Dem Wants Probe Into Allegations of Congress Members Drinking During Contempt Hearing
Why Alito’s ‘Stop the Steal’ Flag Story Just Fell Apart
Alito Tells Fox News Story Behind His Home’s ‘Stop the Steal’ Flag but Critics Unconvinced
‘Partisan Insurrectionist’: Calls Mount for Alito’s Ouster After ‘Stop the Steal’ Scandal
Will Trump Testify at Trial? ‘Absolutely’ Is Now a ‘No Decision’ Yet
News2 days agoEx-Florida GOP Chair’s Efforts to Recruit 3-Way Partners for Anti-LGBTQ Wife Revealed: Report
News2 days agoTrump Appears to Violate Gag Order After Judge Threatened ‘Incarceration’
News2 days agoWill Trump Testify at Trial? ‘Absolutely’ Is Now a ‘No Decision’ Yet
News2 days ago‘Ready to Start Another Insurrection’: Gaetz Support for Trump Echoes Proud Boys Order
News2 days ago‘Chop Them Up, Distort Them’: White House Slams ‘Improper Threats’ as It Blocks Hur Tapes
OPINION1 day ago‘Partisan Insurrectionist’: Calls Mount for Alito’s Ouster After ‘Stop the Steal’ Scandal
OPINION1 day agoWhy Alito’s ‘Stop the Steal’ Flag Story Just Fell Apart
News1 day agoDem Wants Probe Into Allegations of Congress Members Drinking During Contempt Hearing