“The voters don’t deserve to know.” So said Joe Biden in response to a question from a member of the media in Nevada regarding Supreme Court “packing.” Biden, Harris and other Dems have refused to clarify their stance on the issue. They have said they will let us know after the election. Huh? We should trust them? Do they think the voters are idiots? Of course, we all know that their refusal to clarify their position is tantamount to an admission that they will “pack” the court, but voters want to hear the answer nonetheless.

In a related issue Biden has refused to disclose his list of candidates he would consider for the SC should he win the election. Mr. Trump has already disclosed his list of candidates. Most likely Biden is afraid that the names on the list will anger either his moderate supporters or his far left supporters (or maybe both). In any case, the voters deserve to know.

The Dems and their allies in the media have been disseminating a lot of misleading and inaccurate information about the SC and the issue of nominating and approving justices in an election year. Hopefully, the following will clarify matters:

  1. Originally, the SC had six members. The number has varied throughout history, but most of the time there have been nine, like now.
  2. The Constitution provides for Congress to determine the number of justices.
  3. The Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to nominate SC justices. It does not say “except in an election year.” That is an absurd notion. A president is elected for four years, not three. He can even nominate a justice after losing the election.
  4. He can nominate a justice when the Senate is not in session. That is called a “recess appointment.” It has been done a few times, most recently by President Eisenhower in the 1950s. In that event, the nominee serves as a justice for the time being and must be approved by the Senate before the end of the next calendar year.
  5. In the present situation, the Dems would have you believe that President Trump is doing something unique and underhanded, if not illegal. In point of fact, President Trump is not the first President who has had an opportunity to nominate a replacement justice during an election year. There have been twenty-nine such occasions. Would you like to guess in how many of those instances the president has nominated a justice? Twenty-nine. That’s right, every time. So, the criticism of Trump in this regard is just another misdirection.
  6. The same Party controlled the Senate and the Presidency, like now, in nineteen of those cases.
  7. Ten of those nominations were put forth before the election. The Senate approved nine of those. The only rejection was of Abe Fortas whose nomination was derailed by ethical issues, not because it was an election year.
  8. Recently, Biden made the inane statement that Judge Barrett’s nomination was an example of “packing” the court. This was the opposite of what he has said in the past when adding a justice suited the Dems. Another flipflop. Once again, Biden is forgetting that we actually have an invention called videotape, which can record and play back his past comments.
  9. Perhaps, Biden should refamiliarize himself with the Constitution. We have already seen that he is unfamiliar with the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance.


Now, we have seen another example of why Biden’s handlers want to limit his appearances, want to limit any questioning to puff questions from friendly members of the media, and want to keep him hidden away in his basement. Almost every time he is out in public he says something that makes you scratch your head. Over the next few days we can expect Dem spokesmen to try to “walk back” his comments, but the damage is done. This entire issue over the SC will not go away, nor should it.

Why is “packing” the SC so dangerous? The Founding Fathers took great care to establish a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Simply put, Congress passes the laws; the president enforces them; and the SC interprets them. Each of the three branches of government has the ability to “check” the others. “Packing” the SC with far left justices would enable it to, in effect, become an unelected legislature, to “legislate from the bench,” i.e. create de facto laws. Voters who have the power to vote out members of Congress they don’t approve of would be unable to replace rogue justices who serve for life. The carefully crafted system of checks and balances would be severely impaired, if not destroyed.

Our system of government is like a three-legged stool in perfect balance. If one leg were to be broken the entire stool would collapse. We cannot and should not allow that to happen. That is why “packing” the court is so dangerous.

At the present time, voters are distracted by COVID, the economy and other issues. They need to focus on this issue as well. This issue is equally important, if not more so. Some day, COVID will be a distant memory, but the effects of a “packed” SC could last forever.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s