Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren Pivots Back to Idea of Packing the U.S. Supreme Court

Elizabeth Warren Pivots Back to Idea of Packing the U.S. Supreme Court

“I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation”

Democrats have shelved the idea of passing the ‘Build Back Better’ bill for now and have moved on to trying to federalize elections under the guise of voting rights.

Elizabeth Warren, however, has circled back to the idea of packing the United States Supreme Court with liberal justices.

Brian Flood reports at FOX News:

Elizabeth Warren calls for Congress to expand Supreme Court: ‘I believe it’s time’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D.-Mass., called for Congress to use its constitutional authority to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

In a Boston Globe op-ed published Wednesday headlined simply, “Expand the Supreme Court,” Warren became the latest Democrat to call for more justices beyond the traditional nine as conservatives currently have a 6-3 majority.

“I don’t come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation,” Warren wrote, noting threats to eliminate Roe v. Wade and a person’s right to choose sparked her decision.

“For years, I have argued for reforms to the ethical practices of the Supreme Court. Justices should not be allowed to receive big checks and all-expenses-paid trips from extremist right-wing legal groups or go on expensive hunting trips with litigants who appear before the court,” Warren wrote. “But the problems with today’s court run deeper than ethical abuses.”

Warren made her case to MSNBC’s Joy Reid this week and hurled insult after insult at the Supreme Court. She all but called it illegitimate:

Biden’s commission to study the idea of packing the Supreme Court came up with nothing and fizzled out earlier this month.

Even the editorial board of the liberal Washington Post has decided it won’t work:

The Supreme Court should be reformed. But court packing is a terrible idea.

This month’s Supreme Court arguments on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which did not go well for the pro-choice side, have rattled Democratic senators to the point that more are talking about reforming the court.

“It is hard to watch that — and I did watch a fair amount of it — and not conclude that the court has become a partisan institution,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said of the hearings, in which conservative justices appeared ready to gut, if not totally overturn, the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. “And so the question becomes, well: What do we do about it? I’m not sure. But I don’t think the answer is nothing.”

Congress should indeed consider whether to act — but carefully. A new report from a bipartisan presidential commission underscores that court reform could bolster judicial independence and the court’s legitimacy. Or it could do the opposite…

Some Democrats believe the solution is to pack the court with Democratic nominees, expanding its size, while they still have congressional majorities. This would be a historic mistake. It would sap the court’s legitimacy for no long-term benefit; Republicans could re-pack the court the next time they controlled Congress and the White House.

Warren and other Democrats constantly claimed Trump was destroying America’s cherished norms. How does packing the U.S. Supreme Court fit into preserving such norms?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Warren’s “principles” end whenever she does not get her way.

“…packing the United States Supreme Court… ” means “let’s destroy the United States of America.”

Eggshell Skull | December 17, 2021 at 7:52 am


    You know, Fauxcahontas. Taxajawea. Senator Karen. The high-cheeked white girl from Oklahoma who listed herself in a directory of “minority” academics, made her fame by claiming that 70% of bankruptcies are caused by crushing medical bills, made a fortune taking advantage of people’s misery during a real estate price slump, and through it all pretends to be the working person’s champion. That’s who.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | December 17, 2021 at 9:52 am

      “made her fame by claiming that 70% of bankruptcies are caused by crushing medical bills, ”

      That claim was always a joke – since medical bills were unsecured debt – you can just ignore unsecured debt for all practical purposes.

        Right up until the bill collectors come knocking on your door.

        Tim1911 in reply to Joe-dallas. | December 17, 2021 at 11:32 am

        Bankruptcy lawyer here. You ignore medical debt at your peril. They will sue, put a judgment lien on your home and garnish your paycheck and bank account. In my experience, 90% of consumer bankruptcies are caused by job loss, divorce and yes medical debt.

          lichau in reply to Tim1911. | December 17, 2021 at 4:54 pm

          Mr BK lawyer. I yield to your experience as to causes. But, medical debt IS unsecured. My guess is that driving a creditor into BK is a certain way to ensure collection of exactly zero. Which is why medical bills are very negotiable.

        SeiteiSouther in reply to Joe-dallas. | December 17, 2021 at 11:48 am

        Sure you can ignore it. But be happy with what you have, as your credit will be in the shitter until it’s cleared and hope they don’t sue to get the money owed.

It’s a partisan institution only when they rule against a Democrat demand.

she is an epic fraud–her whining about “voting rights” when what she really means is “counting rights/methods/control ” is doublespeak at it’s zenith

she is a blight on the senate and the country

They say the Supreme Court is not yet full. They can pack some more judges in if they try. So how many more can they pack in before it becomes full? One hundred? Five hundred. Build a new building? Maybe from a common sense standpoint it’s already full. And the people who want to pack it are full of bull.

    Dagwood in reply to Peabody. | December 17, 2021 at 11:02 am

    Well technically it’s full if you count butts in seats. Not when you consider that Sotomayor is playing with far less than a full deck of cards.

Talk is cheap and I don’t see any groundswell of support for packing the Court outside of the bicoastal chattering classes

It is always a good indication that you have a strong position when you need to add biased judges to the panel to get your way.


The Dems are trying to define themselves in a way that stifles debate.

Fauci defines himself as “SCIENCE”. So that objecting to his orders is to defy science itself.

Biden defines himself as “DEMOCRACY. So that you are smeared as “anti-democratic” if you object to his policies.

This has now become a common rhetorical technique of the left. It worked so well with BLACK LIVES MATTER. In that case – those who question BLM are made to sound like they are against Black lives.

Also, they use “ANTI-RACIST” to define a certain type of racism that is committed against Whites and Asians. So if you are against “Anti-racism” (neo racism) then they call you a racist.

And they call Jan-6 protestors “INSURRECTIONISTS” – even though there were no guns and the only person who died was a Trump supporter who was killed by Capitol police.

YOU SEE HOW THIS WORKS ? You may say “bid deal – we all know the semantic games they play” But there are 20% to 50% of people who are not so aware of all the semantics and propaganda. They are lulled into believe this bullshit and it adds to the brainwashing.


Senator Karen says the way the USA has operated for at least our entire lifetime is a threat to democracy, and she’s just the Wampanoag who can fix it.

Instead of throwing a tantrum about the relative ideological composition of the CT the Senator could introduce legislation or constitutional amendments to achieve her public policy aims. Just as r have done for the last several generations in the face of a CT composition that wasn’t ideologically receptive to r /conservative policies. The Sen seems to believe that the CT exists as a rubber stamp for d/prog policies and why wouldn’t she? After all it did largely operate that way for her entire adult life.

Like all committed Leftists, Fauxahontas is all about control. Everything, all the time. Laws, and our Constitution, is no barrier. She knows how to live your life better than you.

Warren complaining about someone else’s ethics is pretty ironic.

Antonin Scalia said once of the Constitution: “It is a legal document; it says some things and not others.”

I’d say we actually have a 4:5 progressive majority on the court, counting ACB and Cavanaugh in the majority.

All together now, Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and a fool. Harvard’s best!

Warren is a disgusting pig.

I honestly forgotten about her. Same with Hillary. Maybe once a year they make noise so we know they are still alive.

    henrybowman in reply to r2468. | December 17, 2021 at 2:05 pm

    Just last week she had her ears pinned back by Elon Musk. Now she’s determined to whip it out and make us all measure it.

This “idea” seems at least as dangerous as anything PDJT said about the most recent election. Will Elizbeth Warren be banned from Twitter?

Fake Squaw “high cheek bones” demonstrating her stupidity by opening her mouth again!

OK if she looked like a Kardashian( features not beautiful looks) instead of an aryan nazi cheering on Hitler from the side walk in ” Triumph of the Will” , I could get her pretending to be an Indian to get ahead.
But really …

Senator Karen is just butthurt she got owned by Elon. Now instead of dealing with that fiasco she is moving on to something else. Is this something that passes for an intellectual at Yale these days? I guess so.

Preserving “the democratic foundations of our nation” is now code for turning America into a one party state with Democrats reigning as the supreme governing class.

“I don’t come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision;…”

This is a lie.

The woman is scum.
That’s all.

. . . [C]ould bolster judicial independence and the court’s legitimacy.

That’s a strange statement from WaPo. What legitimacy the court has stems from explicit Constitutional provision, not from some imaginary independence from . . . something-or-other. Although the Constitutional court is a far cry from what we have now, which seems to be some sort of almost unencumbered lifetime philosopher-kings and not a court in any conventional sense. It could stand a bit of a spruce-up, albeit not at the hands of any Democrats.

But when I hear the words “court packing” I imagine a Justice Merrick Garland. Ugh.

The only purpose of packing the SC would be to allow progressive fascists to ignore the constitution.

Don’t be shocked if Warren proclaims that she is in favor of abolishing the Electoral College snd the Senate