One clear message coming out of a Thursday news conference with congressional Democrats is that their court-packing plan is really about the future of how elections are conducted in the United States.
In every election, when you vote for your presidential candidate of choice, you also “vote” for a potential SCOTUS nominee. It has never been more true than in 2020. Liberals send (deliberately?) mixed messages on SCOTUS policy. In this article, Hillsdale College’s Matthew Spaulding provides both historical and contemporary information to help us become more informed on this important subject.
The SCOTUS nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett brought up an inside baseball term that needs defining. “Court-packing” is NOT a duly elected president filling a vacant seat as duty demands. Court-packing is adding judicial seats — by one political party — where justices serve in perpetuity. It ensures the packing party has decades of unilateral ideological control. Every candidate for president has a moral obligation to explain it truthfully to the American people while stating personal intent.
8/13: ACRU General Counsel Ken Klukowski reports on the Democratic politicians and presidential candidates threatening the Supreme Court with court packing if they do not offer liberal rulings on the Second Amendment.
