Image 01 Image 03

Beto O’Rourke Open to Discussion About Packing the U.S. Supreme Court

Beto O’Rourke Open to Discussion About Packing the U.S. Supreme Court

“that court should be able to reflect the diversity that we are composed of in this country”

During a campaign stop in Iowa this week, Beto O’Rourke responded positively to a question about packing the United States Supreme Court. It’s a radical idea that has been mentioned in progressive circles for months now.

Had Hillary won the 2016 election and chosen two new justices for the court, the left would be telling us elections have consequences. Now they’re deeply concerned about intellectual diversity.

Nic Rowan reports at the Washington Free Beacon:

O’Rourke: Packing the Supreme Court Is ‘An Idea We Should Discuss’

Presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke discussed his desire to revise the way Supreme Court justices are nominated and confirmed, while speaking at a Thursday rally in Iowa.

O’Rourke mentioned an oft-cited idea that would change the current system where nine justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a new, expanded system with 15 justices. Democrats would choose five, Republicans would choose five, and together those 10 justices would pick another five, in a vote independent of the people who picked them.

“I think that’s an idea we should explore,” he said.

O’Rourke also said he might support placing term limits on Supreme Court justices.

“We’re a country of 320 million people. There’s got to be the talent and the wisdom and the perspective,” he said. “And that court should be able to reflect the diversity that we are composed of in this country.”

Here’s the video:

This is part of a pattern for Democrats who wish to change the rules whenever they feel they can’t win. We saw the same thing with their demands to end the Electoral College.

Beto is not alone in this. Another, lesser-known Democrat floated the same idea on the podcast run by former Obama staffers.

Rachel Frazin reported at The Hill:

O’Rourke is not the first candidate to weigh in on adding more justices to the court. Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg said previously on Crooked Media’s Pod Save America that adding justices is one way to prevent the court from becoming a “nakedly political institution.”

“This central objective that is to prevent the Supreme Court from continuing on this trajectory to become basically ruined by being a nakedly political institution,” he said. “This idea of adding justices is one way to do it,” he said.

“It may actually not be the most compelling way to do it,” he continued. “I mean I’m interested in a policy where you would have five appointees of Republicans and five of Democrats on a 15 member court. And where you get the other five from is a consensus of the other 10 which has to be unanimous.”

Isn’t it curious how the Supreme Court is only in danger of becoming a “nakedly political institution” when Republicans get to choose new justices?

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“progressives” will leave no institution undamaged in their quest for total power. This “diversity” junk with this “multiculture” stuff is a recipe for national suicide. Their ultimate goal.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Whitewall. | March 16, 2019 at 5:08 pm

    Chamber of Commerce sucking Robert Francis O’Rouke
    confesses he wants to be a

Agreed. The end game of these people is the destruction of the United States, and consequently western civilization. Most are useful idiots along for the ride, but the hardcore ideologues are all about tearing down what brought us here and crushing the smoldering remains under their boots. They will not turn back willingly.

Discussion and Conversation are Socialist speak for: “Shut up and do what I say

Socialism is the new Serfdom

practicalconservative | March 16, 2019 at 10:29 am

Benito O’Rourke . Same hand gestures as the fascist forefather. Same world. Climate emergency means he is in charge.

Connivin Caniff | March 16, 2019 at 10:47 am

Boy, he burned out quick. I can’t believe this nitwit went to Columbia.

    tom_swift in reply to Connivin Caniff. | March 16, 2019 at 11:00 am

    Maybe somebody bribed the Columbia skateboarding coach to say he was vital for the team.

    So did St. Obama (as a transfer), and, a slew of other, prominent Leftist, Dhimmi-crat radicals and zealots. Columbia also gleefully serves as a “rehabilitation” and re-employment charity and halfway house for sundry, odious and convicted felon terrorists from the 1960’s and 70’s. Attending school there does not constitute a feather in one’s cap, in my view.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Connivin Caniff. | March 16, 2019 at 3:48 pm

    “Now they’re deeply concerned about intellectual diversity.”

    A big problem is that most of what they are pushing as diversity lack intellectual capacity.

He is starting to make AOC look smart

Robert O’Rourke is merely parroting one of the Leftists’/Dhimmi-crats’ core ethoses — that a person’s genitalia (female or “trans,” only), skin pigmentation (darker preferred), ethnicity (non-“white”), sexual proclivities (homosexual or bi-sexual, only), and religious devotion (atheist or Muslim, only), are alleged substitutes for — and, indeed, are more important than — assessing a person’s intellect, personal integrity, socioeconomic beliefs and professional accomplishment.

I’m interested in a policy where you would have five appointees of Republicans and five of Democrats

Right, that will certainly make the Court less political.

Actually, these desperate proposals are interesting. Any scheme to institutionalize a Democratic presence on the Court implies that they’re afraid there may never be another Democratic president, and the only way the Party will be able to influence (translation: cripple) the government will be via mandatory appointments in high places. And looking at the abysmal quality of the D’rat lineup for 2020, I can see why they might be concerned. As the Party gallops off toward institutionalized infanticide and socialist totalitarianism, all it would take to drive the D’rats to fringe status would be the R’s doing something effective about rampant voter fraud. Once the bogus votes are eliminated, there won’t be enough to put any Dem in national office.

Hey, how about retiring Supremes after a fixed term, or at a definite age (like maybe 45). That way we wouldn’t be stuck long-term with con men who turn out to be leftoids in neutral clothing, like Souter, or old poots who tack hard left with old age and creeping senility, like Stevens.

If you’re unable to win the hearts and minds of the American people at the ballot box, rig the game.

Going off topic to plug this pro-Trump video. Great song – would love to see it go viral. Tweet it if you use that platform please.

Why are you dignifying this pinhead by using his pathetic “Beto” pseudonym? That’s not his name. Call him out on it every single time.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MrSatyre. | March 16, 2019 at 5:15 pm


    He’s about as Mexican as my Black Cherokee cousins are Mexican.

    Milhouse in reply to MrSatyre. | March 17, 2019 at 1:02 am

    It’s as much his name as “Ted” is Cruz’s. He came by it honestly, long before he or anyone else could have had a potential political career in mind for him, let alone thought of how this would affect it.

      Well, no, this is not correct. “Beto” is apparently some sort of nod toward him as an Irish person who ids with Latinos. He’s “Roberto” aka “Beto.” But he’s still Irish/Western (and probably has as much Latino DNA as Elizabeth Warren has Native American; i.e. zero much).

      In Cruz’s case, he’s not trying to latch on to some identity clique: his middle name is Edward. It’s not uncommon for people to prefer their middle name, and “Ted” is a common nickname for “Edward.” Think Ted Kennedy (his name is actually Edward, of course), and we all know that’s been the norm for centuries. Or maybe “we” don’t? Now if Cruz had changed his surname to “Smith,” . . . ., but he didn’t.

Seriously, if Clinton had won, how would Democrats have treated this proposal?

5 Rs and 5 Ds with unanimous vote for the other 5 = a 10 person SC with permanent 5-5 decisions. Yep, a definite improvement.

I’m beginning to love this guy. The more he talks the more ridiculous a figure he becomes. I’m especially fond of his adolescent poetry and prose. He has a great future in skate boarding!

I thought SCOTUS had one function, which was to make sure that the Constitution was adhered to, that they were supposed to be outside the realm of politics. How should diversity ever be a factor? I understand the real world is not that way, but making it official? No thanks…

    tom_swift in reply to amwick. | March 16, 2019 at 8:32 pm

    I thought SCOTUS had one function, which was to make sure that the Constitution was adhered to

    No, actually, its function is far more prosaic, at least according to the original plan. The Guardians of the Constitution stuff didn’t crop up until 1803.

Does “diversity” mean having a Justice or two that DIDN’T go to Harvard or Yale?

We should quit trying to deport illegal aliens and start deporting fascist democrats. I’d say the population count of both groups is about equal.

Half the nation has lost its mind.

We can’t let them take us down the rathole with them.

“tom_swift | March 16, 2019 at 11:00 am
Maybe somebody bribed the Columbia skateboarding coach to say he was vital for the team.”

Haha Perfect way to sum up these boneheads. Remember Valerie Jarrett – we’ve got two and one on the way – she didn’t need to “pack” the Court to get things done