Dems and Media Redefine “Court Packing” To Mean Opposite Of What It Really Means To Help Biden Out Of Jam
Whataboutism – Accusing Republicans of “court packing” for filling existing vacancies, when the term actually means expanding the size of the Supreme Court to fulfill an agenda
Democrats and their media cohorts are scrambling to figure out what to do about Joe Biden’s self-inflicted court packing problem. Biden, as we noted yesterday, not only asserted that American voters “don’t deserve” to know where he stands on court packing but made the absurd statement that Republicans are “court packing” by lawfully filling an open seat on the Supreme Court. A move Biden ludicrously claims is “not constitutional.”
The word gaming seems intended to convince low information voters, presumably those who vote for Democrats, that the term “court packing” doesn’t mean what it means.
Court packing, of course, refers to a foiled FDR plan, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, to add seats to the Supreme Court in order to further his New Deal agenda. It was called court packing then, and has been ever since. The terms means what it means: adding seats to the Supreme Court to have upheld an agenda the existing court has or likely will rule unconstitutional.
It’s possible to be horrified by Trump in numerous ways and to ALSO notice that what Biden is saying here is argle bargle. Nominating a supreme court justice during an election is not court packing. Adding justices to the supreme court is. https://t.co/JB0L2cJlSQ
— Eli Lake (@EliLake) October 10, 2020
It is stunning how fast this propaganda is spreading. That's simply not what court-packing means. Filling existing vacancies — even with ample bad faith, cynicism, skullduggery whatever — is not "court packing." It's amazing to watch people who know this say otherwise. https://t.co/mEeMssYaTz
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) October 11, 2020
So far, this typical leftist tactic of redefining words, terms, norms has drawn justifiable ire from Republicans, confusion among the media talking heads, and truly weird extrapolation from Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE).
Watch Coons claim that “court packing” means nominating and confirming “unqualified” (i.e. non-leftist) judges to lower courts. He’s so earnest, to practiced, so smooth in telling a bald-faced lie that you are almost certain that Chris Wallace will point out that he’s not only not answered the question but has completely botched the proper use of the term.
Coons may not be the brightest bulb on the Democratic Party’s ‘Winter holiday’ tree, but he absolutely knows what court packing is, so this display is particularly repugnant.
He goes on to get back on script and parrots Biden’s moronic claim that confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett is “court packing.”
Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Chris Coons said on Sunday that the Senate moving to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “constitutes court-packing,” and called the nominee’s views “disqualifying.”
Coons, D-Del., made the comments during an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., also spoke with Wallace Sunday.
“I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views … are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying,” Coons said of Democrats’ strategy for Barrett’s hearings. “It constitutes court-packing.”
Court-packing’s traditional definition is expanding the Supreme Court by law and then confirming justices to those seats, not what Republicans are doing, which is filling a naturally occurring vacancy. Sasse shot back that Coons’ definition of court-packing was “obviously” incorrect and accused the Democrat of using “Orwellian” language.
Sen. Chris Coons just told Chris Wallace on Fox that the Senate confirming Amy Coney Barrett "constitutes court-packing." That statement is constitutionally unintelligible . . . https://t.co/8Vfz9KfAZd
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 11, 2020
Coons is not the only one on the media hotseat, though. Watch Jake Tapper take a Biden surrogate to task over Biden’s refusal to state his stance on court packing (actual court packing, not whatever Dems are claiming it is at any given moment).
At the end, Tapper pushes back on the Biden campaign narrative that the court packing issue is a “game”: “I think a serious policy question is not a game, and I don’t think it’s Trump’s game.”
I particularly appreciate Tapper pointing out that the court packing issue came from the left. He doesn’t name names, but here at LI, we have covered the various threats Democrats have issued to Republicans and the war gaming they are engaged in . . . including not only court packing but adding states to shore up a permanent Democrat Senate majority and nuking the Senate filibuster.
Like Coons, prominent leftists are already trying on different definitions of “court packing” for size. Leslie Marshall, for example, claims—with apparent sincerity—that a conservative majority SCOTUS “IS packing the court.”
Amazing but not surprising how liberals have redefined the term “court packing” to mean the opposite of what it really means in order to get Biden out of the jam he is in. How much longer before they declare that NOT packing the court is racist? https://t.co/vOlY2TGfLj
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) October 11, 2020
On the one hand, the media can’t ignore that Biden is refusing to answer a constitutionally critical question about the structure and nature of the Supreme Court of the United States, one of the three coequal branches of government, and on the other hand, Democrats are attempting to iterate, expand on, rewrite, and improve Biden’s word gaming on the issue.
There you have it folks, the true leftist view that the Supreme Court is there to help liberals achieve policy goals regardless of the Constitution. They are now open about what they want, so why doesn’t Biden just admit the agenda? https://t.co/l9YBLfnsi8
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) October 11, 2020
They’ll be on the same page soon enough. We are watching in real time as Democrats and their media “activist arm” coordinate messaging to save Biden from himself.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.