Share This Episode
Jay Sekulow LIVE! Jay Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: Hostile Takeover? Dems Announce Bill to Pack Supreme Court

Jay Sekulow LIVE! / Jay Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
April 15, 2021 1:00 pm

BREAKING: Hostile Takeover? Dems Announce Bill to Pack Supreme Court

Jay Sekulow LIVE! / Jay Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 293 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


April 15, 2021 1:00 pm

Today on Sekulow , we cover the breaking news that the radical Left in Congress are proceeding with their plot to pack the Supreme Court with a newly announced bill. The bill seeks to add four new seats to the Supreme Court, which would effectively give President Biden and the Left a majority on the Court.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Breaking news secular OS Jimmy Kratz announced a plan to pack the Supreme Court hostile takeover talk about that live from Washington DC line Republican stole two seats on the Supreme Court. Now it is up to us to repair that damage phone lines are open for your questions right now: 1-800-684-3110 there every single American. Regardless of where you stand politically and now your host Jordan nation on forms that may they may try to push forward in to the federal court specifically of US Supreme Court. We now have members of Congress, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee by Jerry Nadler bucking the by the administration. A bucking. Also, Nancy Pelosi, who said she wasn't ready for this Dick Durbin also said not ready for this moving forward there in front of the Supreme Court right now speaking other putting for they've actually got the legislature got my hands right here two pages is to add four justices to the Supreme Court. All four will be selected by if they got their way by Joe Biden acknowledge they would have to do away with the filibuster to do this to me this is the first test run on packing the court and again they're looking at packing it with four justices all chosen at the same time by Joe Biden acknowledging that they would do away with the filibuster and I think there is support for this still slim because the Democrat majority slim in the house but the Democrats there. There are the most left a bag to keep it together they could get the Democrats and stay together like my baby get through the house now. They also are using is a doublet thornier, not only are they doing what West Smith is called a hostile takeover of the US government by backing the Supreme Court that affects all branches of government, but you also have the same time. I think this is upon Millie port. They know that they have to do away with the legislative filibuster in order to do this. Now they just put that which I think which is Monday or Tuesday of this week that we discussed the commission being formed. That was supposed to look at the whole Supreme Court issue in." We like the language of the charter of the commission was problematic to begin with. But now Andy you got them for the commission is even the ink is dry on their commissions. You got the house Democrats in Senate Democrats introducing a lettuce limit is rated it says little men US code, title 28 and says achieve just the odd states and eight justices will be replaced by a Chief Justice of the United States and 12 associate justices.

They call it the judiciary Reform Act of 2021 Judiciary act of 2021, while it already made up their mind having J what's the purpose of having a commission if you've made up your mind. The job and then expand expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices. And that's exactly what is happening here the commission seems to be redundant. There's no need to have a commission if you've already decided that you can expand the court by adding four justices and it seems that there is a disconnect.

Bradford drink the White House and Congress in terms of what the plan is but the Congress Nadler and Diane Johnson of and mad Marquis and so, for they've already gone on and made their decision that there than a hostilely takeover the Supreme Court of the United States. And that's exactly what they're doing and doing it by fiat" by adding judges to the court adjourned this politically.

This is a test run right absolutely test run, so Job I deserve to support it.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't supported Chuck Schumer Dick Durbin enough to support it. They get to see it kind of how many people in the house have remembers the house will Artie be on for this. How many of the senator on board with this of this idea for their split there there for putting for specific idea to not just we need to do this but actually say what the number should be how that how they wanted chosen they would if was chosen by the pipe. At present, Biden all for this would be a hostile takeover would answer closely to say what direction like in my caucus was and same with Chuck Schumer and then Joe Biden kind of say what I think my commission should situate my commission or this will be the model for the commission scan legislation so take your calls 164 3110.

What is this mean for the future of the Supreme Court.

The future of our country. If Democrats have their way with this one, 800-684-3110 will be right back on secular the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate will be managed $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online ACLJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is protecting. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life support and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists.

The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/and it's interesting that that what were looking for. I believe it's a test run. I believe that Joe Biden would sign on to this in a heartbeat if he could do it. I believe VP Harris what I think closely what if Schumer would they got to see the vote think I get the American people's reactions to their initial reaction from leadership top leadership is out of the so support this action is received from Pelosi but when you would to determine it was, not right now wasn't. I don't ever support this. This is the guys you put out to test that the chairman of the judiciary committee Jerry Nadler. He needs to move to the left that people I can, Johnson, Georgia Georgia getting a lot of attention right out voting issues and issues like that so makes sense to put him 40s also vice chair of the committee on the courts in in the country and they're trying to explain to the American people in a fairly backhanded way we can do this with everyone that's how the constitutions written that's true, except for it hasn't, as it been tried is not been tried since FDR is the last time it was tried and failed, and this court makeup is been the same since 1869 substance after the Civil War.

This is been the same night had the same nine number. The only person try to change that.

Was told no, by his own party who controlled both the house. The city very similar right to right now.

Joe Biden said that he had better margins.

Yet he had better margins and they still said no and they said no because court packing runs against the whole-grain of the why we have lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, and while we have separation of powers and an independent judiciary and Kevin McCarthy's right in saying this is a danger to every American Gallup poll has said that despite what Jerry Nadler and company are saying that the Supreme Court's people at Payton's report by a majority more than they had in recent years, and certainly more than I have in Congress so that this is you got understand what this is its peer politics but it's politics folks that very dangerous you would give for appointments to the current President of the United States because, by the way Stephen Breyer is not resigning so I'm sure this is all part of the play area what's going on here absolutely sent to someone's famously sad. This particular bill is a test of principal and we know, certainly, from their actions that the Democrats are intending on doing what they are. They intend to engage in a hostile takeover of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the most trusted branch of government and the support that Democrats are intent on undermining that trust and moving forward with a radical court packing plan that Pres. Biden said in 1983 that that idea was boneheaded. In 19 I'm sorry in 2020, a Biden said the American people do not deserve to know his position as we know it now, and now we know that Biden and the Democrats are intent on restructuring both the executive branch and the congressional branch to take over the United States Supreme Court. Despite Nancy Pelosi same amount in favor of it right now. I want this commission to work it to me. It's not a chance that the commissions announced on Monday with one of the goals of changing the number of justices on this report, among other things that are very, very dangerous. Okay. And then at the same time you got Mark Center Marquis and Jerry Nadler make the announcement today with Hank Johnson at the steps of the Supreme Court that we've introduced the bill and it has been a house resolution has been endued introduced judiciary act of 2021 W. you call that the hostile takeover the US government is not just a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court.

This is the only branch of the government that they do not control, and so it is their intent to take to complete a hostile takeover the US government. I think to the most telling things they said inference room Supreme Court just now. To quote Sen. Marty says democracy is in jeopardy. Today he's actually quite correct but is not in jeopardy because I have not just as it is in jeopardy because of what they're doing. The other thing that they said which I thought was just so incredible they said we must pack the court in order to restore democracy.

What a crazy statement. It reminds me of the out-of-control Army officer during Vietnam who said we must destroy the village in order to save it yet was that kind of insanity that were written during that date they're looking at trying to pick up forcing trying to get it. What they would force each of the Supreme Court chosen by Joe Biden. This would be in line with if they go the route of Jeff getting rid of the filibuster part of this is a move to the midterms that try to make a modern issue. Usually the party. It was near the present event the house, the Senate, you lose those branches and and so this is again it's a push to try to give a rallying issue the left. They need the left and there also I think will try to make this an issue about race. No surprise.

Who they chose to put this forward. The plot of Georgia Congressman Etta Georgia where these issues are getting focused arena. Can you make an issue about race in the midterm elections. So let me ask. I got an idea exactly right select. Let's go to Van Bennett first thing on the course rated within pop process here. So what's happening that's both that she doesn't really want this, but of course it's being introduced and we got the commission. This is the commission just was announced on Monday, but they make the legislation they what is the process here will I start with Adam and Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden can say anything that they want J but if they can get the votes in the House and the Senate.

All three of those people will be on board and is now in black-and-white.

So you have to take this seriously. The process begins in a House Judiciary Committee in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If those committees reported the bill out either favorably or unfavorably could get a vote on the floor of the house and the Senate and NJ lucky that the Democrats currently hold a 218 to 212 advantage in the House of Representatives that they could only lose two votes as currently constituted, to move it through the house and of course this then it is a 50-50 split. That's why it ties into that debate over the legislative filibuster. But as we have set on this broadcast all week.

J this is a legislative process. I will guarantee you this. If this bill landed on Joe Biden's desk.

He would sign it. There is no question let me play pre-wood Center Marquis said just minutes ago expanding the court's constitutional. Congress has done it before and Congress must do it again. We must expand the court and we must abolish the filibuster to do it.

So to twitter it's a twin it's time-limited and Quicken is that I got some tournaments about this filibuster but let me lick the court is been expanded before. That's true, but it has not been expanded in over 100 years well over 124 years. I guess that's exactly right driving Supreme Court United States was constituted by the judiciary act of 1869 that have nine members and says achieve justice in a Supreme Court justices, the last time and effort was made legislatively to expand the Supreme Court was by Franklin D Roosevelt in 1937 with what was called the judiciary Reform Act of 1937 and that was happening because all his new deal legislation was being declared unconstitutional by the existing Supreme Court, which consisted primarily of conservative Republican justices that have been appointed by his predecessor so he says oh I get around this obvious answer more justices to the court forever, just as that 70 and I have I'll add another justice all have 15 justices.

But what happened with that is that his own part of the Democrats shot it down, the chairman of the house judiciary committee in 1937, who was a Democrat held up the bill for hundred and 65 days, the Majority Leader of the Senate died and therefore he couldn't press the vote with the bill and the bill eventually died about new justices were appointed who then went in the filling in the vacancies of the other justices and approve the new deal legislation that we have been with a Supreme Court and nine members for over 80 years and it needs to stay that way. You don't need politicians and roads. It's the most sacred range of the thrift government.

In my estimation between 69 is a lot more than 8800 hundred and 3050 years it's been the same for hundred 50 years, yet they want the they want the filibuster changed right in the midst of this, they throw out of course to do this will have to get rid of the filibuster. And that's because there's no way that he get to 60 votes in any way after next midterm and and I don't even know if they have votes for theater women filibuster that that the think it's interesting, but to build up. It's a buildup it's tried to make you except this is an okay idea to just hand a President for new Supreme Court justice fix lifetime appointments that changing that since for lifetime appointments. It's packing the court to the left far left and it again.

I have to I have to just underscore this. This is the test.

If this test fails miserably. I don't think Joe Biden wants to down this hill politically, but he's going to use it as part of the voting rights push to try turnout voters in the midterms had of scaring people turnout and this is good to be part of it. So this is just day one, of what is probably multiyear strategy lead was a multiyear Year to have strategy into the midterms and try to actually hold onto the House and Senate yet so this is what you get yet so the political plan.

This is pretty clear limit. Let's talk about what we need to do here. So we wanted. I think nine is the number justice like Justice Ginsburg photos Justice Breyer nine has served the country well does me with every case when it don't do a lot of them.

It was some it's his latest that's on checks and balances working government they want to undo that is a hostile takeover the government you want to fight a hostile takeover the government support the work of the ACLJ so our team on Capitol Hill right now. On top of this they bring it to your home in this broadcast today with deep analysis support the work of the ACLJ especially is matching Jones campaign as we fight back now at a hostile takeover of the US government river you have throughout the month of April to make this donation. Your donation will be matched donor so that every donation to the month of April, so March important.

April so important also to the ACLJ donate today. Be right back. Second tape on only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is certainly protected. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life support and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith and covering correction in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100.

This is a critical time for the ACLJ the work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today to make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online ACLJ speaking out of this, especially those who have served in the highest levels of our of our US government at the federal level that includes our senior counsel for global affairs Mike Pompeo for secretary state. The story is now secretary Pompeo. I will write you this because you been outspoken about it sounds like to me that you put for this lease for five members of Congress to kinda throw the test out there about what they like to do with court packing for new justices all appointed by Joe Biden get rid of the filibuster as you point out some of your tweets you and always will it add to be at the return on two things as a test.

This one is we have to do this to protect voting rights in or to try to make it a race issue, and second, it will be an issue on abortion. As always, Jordan died nine.

It works it's constitutional. It reflects essential understanding about the Constitution works checks and balances, your points, exactly right. This is a power grab. Remember Jordan detect about us in the top ministration undoing institutions try to add a couple states try to get rid of the filibuster navigator try and see if they can convince enough Americans that that idea packing the court to their political biases the right thing to do. This is at the center of the American tradition we got to everything we can stop and I know the ACLJailbait very much at the center of this fight and we certainly are. Mike you got a decent unsweetened scissors record justices uphold the rule of law, not the emotional blog packing the Supreme Court until favorable outcomes bring partisan politics into the courtroom. Scotus is the last place we need political games but it is not covered by said this earlier is a dual order they want to pack the court with four new selections and get rid of the legislative filibuster at this and use that as the reason why to do it. So this week is Justice Breyer sediment, which is that a piece on during the break. According Justice Breyer which I never thought I'd see in my but that's great passport with me a couple times not not a lot, but probably 30, 40%, but here's my question there really trying to do a double thing here. I mean they want to pack the court and get her the filibuster the same time using the court packing to get rid of the filibuster yet that the two notions are important that they go together because I can't get one without the other and in tandem. They think they got an argument that can make you you began her.

Jordan began by talking about race. They will they will use this issue as a wedge to divide the American people try present the case for what they're attempting to do, but no one should be fooled.

This is about power. This is about denying political accountability and turning the Supreme Court did nothing more than a rubber stamp for their progressive ideas. Those twin actions. The efforts on the filibuster and the efforts to pack the court go alongside each other. They are complementary and they will push on each of them.

Justice Vargas passes the camp as you play. Justice Breyer's quote for audience to hear the whole "this poor lady wanted to be resiliency during a break. This is Justice Stephen Breyer Harvard Law school back in April talking Harvard law school about basically court packing to glisten the rule of law has weathered many threats, but it remains starting.

I hope and expect that the court will retain its authority but that authority like the rule of law depends on trust. A trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics, structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only be that matter. Perception this is this is Sacramento.

This is exactly Justice Breyer's right, but this is exactly what they are doing and they announce a commission on Monday and then put the legislation forward on Thursday. Yeah they got a tribe on rush this thing was fast and as far as they can. Make no mistake about. It's gonna take each of us raising her voice making the case for why this is antidemocratic strikes at the heart of our Republic week. We can't let it happen, you know, to quote a former center. It would be boneheaded to this, it would write a President would look at just and and and this discussed that the Republicans should do this either.

When one palaces and the kind of thing where one party should decide they have their mom and they're getting a drive out Republican to the ground and deny these checks and balances. This is about principle this about our central understanding of who we are as Americans of what makes our country unique and we all have to in the ACLJust got a big part of this log on to work really hard over these coming days and weeks and I'll probably extend months while the by administration tests test America see if it's prepared to push back against these progressive efforts, usually through the Italian want to do away with the filibuster course to get this done, which is like that's no big deal, but you also wrote about we tell we we started this sick to prepare, which is the your abortion always come to consider stage of these debates about the Supreme Court and the title X rule change you talked about that you wrote about that her website being published today by the by the ministration rolling back.

Basically, the pro-life policies of the trumpet ministration out how far-reaching is this move bye-bye Biden to do this so it's pretty broad Jordan and pretty deep and deeply immoral of the work that the State Department did when I had the privilege deleted under Pres. Trump and the work that they ministration did more broadly to protect every life from conception to natural death was real and important on my part was to make sure that that foreign aid assistance that went around the world didn't end up underwriting so-called family-planning that guides the rubric that the false orgies to really describe abortion practices from NGOs that are underwriting other countries efforts at abortion were serious about it. We were thoughtful we were determined we make sure that no taxpayer money ever went to underwriting and abortion. These are family destroying activities and now the body ministration is opening that backup undoing not only the Mexico City policy. All the work that we did to protect life. Now this change to title X will fundamentally and bind these this most central right that every human being has you know Mike you got another peewee got a couple pieces up by Sec. Pompeo so you want to see this patent foreign policy essential to our Republic like that's our lead article up right now it's a little bit of what you're trying to get out there is very important issue of made it clear that faith in public squares not only consistent with Americans Judeo-Christian tradition, but necessary for our Republic God to continue exceptionalism J you all know, American history, I saw our ambassador to the United Nations yesterday.

Try to undermine that talking about what failed formation in the United States that nothing could be further from the truth. We learned we were found in the center Judeo-Christian principles that is a shot shining light to the world and so for elected officials in each of us have to bring faith into the public square. We are where we are in a nation that has when a First Amendment it says when I can have an established religion but working to make sure that every human being has the right every American has the right to practice the faith that they want to and you don't get that out when you move into the public space and it was always important for me to make sure everyone the life of an evangelical Christian. I love Jesus and I always told folks that the way I think about the world is informed by that and if we stripped that out. If we move that away.

These issues are connected right that the idea packing the Supreme Court's of these can change things like the Hyde amendment. You can do all the things that the run afoul of our Republic, our Constitution, these are things we Permit and that's why am so excited to be part of this organization that works so hard and filed amicus briefs on title X issues and all the things that truly matter can change the way this administration is restricted that new pieces just published last couple hours. Have faith in foreign policy this very unique have from a former Secretary of State. I think in foreign policy, essential for our Republic by Mike Pompeo again assessing your counts for global faith ACLJake will only find that@aclj.org so check that out today is always a Sec. Pompeo to have you as part of the team. Thanks for joining us today. Thanks, Jay Cella. All right, folks, we want you to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice that a matching challenge right now is how we can bring people like Pompeo onto the tea. Think about this piece that he wrote faith afford policies of former Secretary of State writing about the role of faith afford policy not to somebody you know someone in the activity of someone who has done the job as the nation's top to prevent we've been able to assemble this team because of your tremendous financial support of ACLJake double the impact of your donation today the entire month of April by donating online being part of her matching challenge and ACLJ.or will be back second half hour.

The American Center for oil and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be managed $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 can make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ.live from Washington DC and now is messaging coming out Nancy Pelosi so she said she does not agree with this legislation, which is been introduced by Jerry Nadler consider market others this morning on this by the steps the Supreme Court to add for do justice to the court all forward be all 40 justice would be chosen by Joe Biden and then confirmed by a guess right now it is a barely controlled Democrat and U.S. Senate. The only way they now just to get this done would be to get away with.

Do do away with the legislative filibuster so a lot there to unpack, but Nancy Pelosi while six is again agree with it completely.

If you'd like to have some more time on this because the Jacobites had a commission on this and he wants on Monday. She did say this morning that the US population the size the economy quote might necessitate expanding the size of Supreme Court. This is a clear timeout by Pompeo.

This is the great this is how you do things you start a commission put out test legislation and you see what the feedback is like you know you're exactly right. And yet understand something.

I think this is also hurting the court a little bit. Their caseload has shrunk over the last decades, there's been years where they taken 70 or 80 cases. When I first started, and he will eat first started doing the Jews for Jesus case back in the midnight, 80s and 90s, mid 80s. 40 years ago, almost they were taken 100 and 1520 cases before that they were taken hundred 50 Dave had years now. They taken 75 or less, but this idea of controlling a branch of government, as West said, you know, the hostile takeover of a branch of government or the US government is is very dangerous and they they tried to rely on history, but history just doesn't support the no J does not. Alexander Hamilton was very careful in saying the weakest branch of government is the judiciary and what he meant by that is that he said it does not have the power of the purse. It doesn't control the expenditure of money and it doesn't have the power to execute its directives, which is vested in the President and the executive branch of government. So it's the easily easily has cowed the easily just intimidated the easiest controlled branch of government and yet it is the most sacred branch of government.

In my estimation of the three because it is apolitical and must stay political and makes determinations of constitutionality of laws, among other things, and it's the brands that you've got to keep your hands off of those of you who are politicians and let it function as it has function for the beginning of the Republic and since taking 69 with nine justice is very very well indeed, Harry wanted things that I think about from a politics policy perspective there looking at this and say look you get this free pickup for states the boats right now.

There were about the 63 conservative majority. All of a sudden you add all these you got 7876, precisely as other do the math so but Democrats have three objectives. Certainly they want to pack the court.

Second, they want to get rid of the filibuster. And third, they want to smoke out and get rid of moderate Democrats who might oppose this legislation and so many moderate Democrats are already being targeted by the progressive left within the Democratic Party because they want the government to be even more radical than Alexandra Causey O'Connor Cortez current currently positions the government which Dale played in the left Jordan here mute. Then they mean by the plight of the left will absolutely this is this is a movie and play left. So I think that this this idea that Nancy Pelosi came and set out support this yet makes sense because she wants to see how it all comes together. But she is no way this happened without her. At least getting that degree like she did say a Jerry Nadler chair Visscher three you know if you do the some of the AQS chair the district which read, write, so this is to allow it to allow the kind of conversation to begin the radicals out first. Oh wow their shocking and welcome back with something, maybe a little less is three justices and maybe it's try to work across. I don't know the do something which, not quite as extreme sound. We put out the radicals first thing it's a normal political strategy and will he would care the conservatives actually raise up and say no but I can allow this. That's our job as we have the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life saving commerce ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100.

This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online LJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the life of the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/you to pay for it.

I would put it past sky where we live in as attenuated. This also be part of the quote infrastructure bill with their social infrastructure and this infrastructure is nothing to do with building anything or repairing anything. Why would it be all we need this extra Supreme Court justice so that we can force your states to comply with France is the case were involved in their probably worried about, well, what if they, the Supreme Court ultimately says in Ohio can lower their taxes and receive the stimulus money that would be the case. We had four justices right now from Joe Biden exactly right.

And that's why look that's what that rate that we filed in that case is so essential and representing a most 80 members United States Congress. But I think you know I want to go to West quickly and then take this call for mandated college infrastructure needed.

Yes, that is then back yet so cut to Congressman Jones said this was infrastructure Congressman Mounir Jones. Jordan is one of the cosponsors of this when asked about this bill. He said the Supreme Court is infrastructure Jordan, we need to think about his word. They may try to slip in and reconciliation bill for infrastructure this is a parliamentarian allow that the enemy may change the Supreme Court over infrastructure reconciliation. I mean that that what I would think the parliamentarian would step up in safety. That doesn't make sense but who knows that with the way that they do fighting infrastructure. Jordan, the parliamentarian should know how it clearly runs afoul of the bird rural. It is not budgetary in nature.

So I would think that it would get stricken. But I will tell you the ruling of the parliamentarian made a couple weeks ago, allowing them to amend budget resolutions in order to get an additional crack at it. Don't take anything for granted here during that's what I would set forth part of it is budgetary economics that made its dollars that are to be expended whets your sense of where this goes. When you think this is no Harry mentioned that they have three object. I think these gentlemen and left us in Congress writ large. Also have three points of reference, and that is our nation's defective. Our Constitution is defective as their view and are yet their view in our system of checks and balances is that that they do not like checks and balances that it would be trying to do this and basically they're trying to reshape and fundamentally change the Supreme Court of the United States based on the fact that it's like it's a short-term plan for what amounts to instant gratification politically. You think they would've learned their lesson when they eliminate the filibuster for digit judicial appointments and they would be doing this, but they didn't learn in their trying just because of pure politics and instant gratification. They're willing to go in and change the play think they did that change of the judicial filibuster so they're not listening. Not afraid to change filibuster rules and even I was thinking about this, you know, if you look at it. We talked about historically. Let's look at it right now. The impact of adding four justices on the Supreme Court on issues like religious liberty or issues like but Jordan mentioned that the the infrastructure bill were you can't lower taxes.

Estate is being told they cannot have dramatic impact on everyday citizens lives alone absolutely does because it changes the balance judicial ideology so radically in the Supreme Court of the United States.

I think at best. We have a 54 division right now may be advancing theory depends.

The point is, they can't stand the fact that Pres. Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

They can't stand that. So the way they react against it is, they simply say will just add three or four of our own, maybe five knows what it ultimately will be, but it does affect every citizen in Matthew is hands off the Supreme Court tell you this if you look at what their late thinking right now we will look at a politically person. Here's what they're thinking we present from putting three justices of the Supreme Court so you got the seal 6354 majority right now who are the likely replacements in anything it happened, but just as Myers given no indication that he stepping down.

The other two are young you son Mayor Kagan said I think what's happening here is the Democrats are looking at this and saying briar probably not stepping down and even if he did that second to get us there, precisely. So I think you have to hand it to the Democrats. They know how to count and I think it is clear beyond question that right now they are on the losing side of many of the debates that motivate the polity but it's important to note that progressives for progressives alternation our history and our rule of law are all defective in their mind. Why because they're motivated by what might be called a social justice religion and I think it is a religion. And so you cannot necessarily have a rational debate about the objectives of the radicals because they seem so transparently incoherent and indefensible. So here's what Jerry Nadler same. The worst thing to try to pack the corridors what he says some people say were practical. When I pack they were unpacking it. Send them a kind on the Republicans pack the court over the last couple of years that sentiment. Markey outlined so this is a a a reaction to that. It's a necessary step in the evolution of the court under the court evolved as a solution has to be by Republicans. There were vacancies and Republicans filled the that's up and and they use the legislative power. They Artie had. So in the field of the filibuster.

They regularly filibuster to do anything special. No new legislation. That's because the die justices rate is that the seats open up and they fill them, and they were in control that's unpacking the court. This is following the Constitution that that having to put four new legislation or anything like that, let me go to Amy in Colorado online one because I think her cause very important because this is what it's all about elite welcome to secular you're on the air telling, and right off the bat. Remember there's only a six vote margin right now the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate split. We have elections that will come up the 90 year so at the midterm elections a year and 1/2 and if one of those branches falls back to Republicans worry about this movie afforded all that's one thing to do.

Election lies is you choose your elected officials is very tight. The house is a narrow axis can be in the city 50-50. So this a lot of this could ultimately be stopped if we fight now to make sure it doesn't happen before writers midterm elections. Is this the kind of thing you do if you could burn your house down if Joe Biden thinks he connects to get this done.

Given the filibuster, Nancy Pelosi, I think they would lose the next election cycle so they give up speaker the house, they would give up the Senate to pack the court for horticulture with so this is what the test again so then you did a memo for this morning showing that this 218 to 212 is the current makeup of the United States House of Representatives. But there are series of democratic members are elected by a margin of less than 5%. So fan.

My question is because people are asking what's the action item and what what are we gonna do on Capitol Hill and that's we got engaged every single member of the House and Senate we've Artie started it by the way, more than hundred 40,000 of our members have signed a petition opposing this plan already were taking it to both sides of the chamber and this is why at the outset of the broadcast day you said that if Democrats keep the house together they can get it through and that's absolutely true that I think we can beat it J we only need to convince three Democrats that this is a bad idea and we can stop it in the House of Representatives were to take it within a day. One of the on that graduate while one of the thing. I just wanted to say to Amy I she asked the right question because at its base J. This is an effort to take the power away from the American people discussed what Jordan just said, you need two things under the Constitution to fill a vacancy, you need a willing President and a willing Senate Democrats are mad about Mary Garland Internet allowing Senate.

They're mad about Amy Tony Barrett. But guess what the American people are the ones that were given the power under the Constitution and the American people chose a Senate to affirm Pres. Trump's picked. This is an effort to steal the power and the American people. At its base level. That's what it now and it would wouldn't let about a minute here. The fact is though FDR failed in his court packing.

But where he won was the subsequent decisions on the new deal.

All went to his favor yeah what happened is ultimately ultimately you be able to get out of the bag as they say, because the new deal plans that they were being struck in that stricken down by the supreme court.

Prior to that ultimately all were passed as constitutional by the court that be then began to fail as the vacancies began to come up so the natural course of events. The new deal proposals were declared unconstitutional and he got what he ultimately wanted, but he didn't get them the additional four pack justices that he was out to get you did get it in the process of political evolution. I think what we gotta do is you got to be ready to battle this through the election to the next midterm election because here's what they could do.

They can either make it to be very tough to do right now. Do not bind the headlights of Nancy Pelosi's kill this by her statement that is bogus. Their plan to sides here and want to see how you'll react by not being so urgent, and if you accept this without taking very much a very loud opposition do not trust the dates closest to do your work for you here Nancy Pelosi is just waiting for this to enough to build up pressure wise to see. Should they try this before the midterm elections to try to encourage Democrat turnout, or do they need to try to get a couple more seats in the U.S. Senate is people like Joe mansion and edited and uses his election issue. That's the only calculation here.

I try to push it back before the election or after not it's not wit it sat if they could do it when are they going to do it the way to stop it is my show is by standing up right now standing up through the next election cycle Fort Worth ACLJ will be doing just that doubly impact your donation for matching challenge and ACLJ.org only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ casings were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is powering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ.

The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. You forgive today online ACLJ hundred 684 31 to 2000 684-3110 fewer touches under this final segment of the broadcast Patricia Collier from California. Patricia takes hold on your on the air all outside air. I am an evangelical Christian. I think that you do and I appreciate you.

I was wondering if Democrats are all and packing the court and eliminating the filibuster nappy one more step toward socialism is like they want. Ultimately, anyway, but it's it's towards control. So if if socialism in your definition is control and more of their left-leaning policies get greenlighted by the court with their challenges and, yes, it should be a way to ensure this short-term decade speaking because of the unit for new justice of this report, there are there for decades. So delicate short-term like couple years this would be a kind of a rubberstamp court, in their view of their most unchallengeable legal pop legislation that they pass policies, they put forward and they assume that that by adding these four Ye are those that are already there. There can have a rubberstamp but they also are saying in their commission. Let's not forget about the commission and the commission doesn't just say numbers of justices. The commission says wait case. The way cases are selected and their procedure for how cases are heard. So it is a reshaping of the federal judiciary.

That is what they're looking at your door. You said earlier, enterprise averages go through massive judiciary reform bill, but which are probably ultimately to become. If you look at what they're saying in the commission. It goes much further than just vanity a couple justices really doesn't today. I made it really doesn't talks about such things as the advice and consent process which is embedded in our Constitution talks about that. That should scare you write off.

It also talks about things like that.

As you said, the way justices select the cases.

Now we have a rule of 44 justices can decide to pick against the here and that's what it is one now the Supreme Court of the, the commission set up by by is going to make a determination is going to inquire into how the justices go about selecting the cases are going to hear what businesses is that of the executive branch of government to do that.

My position is in our position is it is not your business to inquire into how the justices select other cases or how they vote with their ideology is the justices or downloads selected by the President of the advice and consent of the Senate, then choose the constitutional procedure and that's the one that should be left in place, let me play with Andy McCarthy her friend at this country's lawyer said on Fox news. This is this important regularity, and if they listen they think they can intimidate the Supreme Court into the way they choose which cases to decide and in the way they can did they decide the cases that are before them, whether they unexpectedly give the left wings that you wouldn't figure they get more in cases were conservatives when decisions become so narrow that there are of of little precedential use.

So there's a lot a lot of mischief here so of this legislation. Here he talks about just that not just mean adding these new justices to the Supreme Court, which, to give them a majority of the fact of the matter is to move to 13 on the fact of the matter is there a commission is looking at things much further, including how cases are accepted and that's a big deal, absolutely. So one of the proposals that academics have talked about is to remove the Supreme Court's power to look at certain types of legislation. So for instance legislation having to do with voting rights. The Democrats they would like to expand voting rights to allow illegals. For instance, to vote in some cases, my wife and I we lived in England we have the right to vote there. Even though we were not citizens in local elections, and so I think the Democrats would like to move in that particular direction here and I think one of the other things that the Democrats want to do is that they want to expand the court's willingness to adopt a suspect doctrine called living constitutionalism, and that puts at risk every single constitutional right that the American people now enjoy it would be nave to think less that this is just tinkering with the little thing. This is much bigger than that.

They are actually trying to fundamentally shape the federal government and think that in place for for a long long time and it's so disingenuous. I think her listers needed to really realize this.

They are saying that that the Republicans practice court packing all they get a President used his constitutional powers to fill three vacancies on the Supreme Court present a truck did not cause the vacancies he did what he supposed to do in a Senate elected by the American people confirm them that was not court packing. This is no question about that, Texas online one off Sebi prizefighter holiday time welcome to secular on their am so tired of saying the left wing liberals say one thing when it behooves them in another thing when it is against them and it was such a double standard. The American public is sitting here walking up to the window opening their mouth and taking the medicine because in my union, the liberal media media altogether is so biased and they they you know there's a certain proportion of the country to get their news from TMZ that you look this is this is a well thought out plan, though I don't think anybody thinks the think for a moment that this is not been well thought out, not not for a moment and in fact I think Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin and others coming out I think that strategy they want to appear reasons, so that whatever ends up as the final package I can go through a limit to this quickly to the caller. Yes, it can be hard to cut through the media narrative, but Jake there were 19 Democrat members of the House of Representatives left elected by a margin of less than five present. You only need three of them to defeat this legislation. That's where we need to focus but any really quick that they're doing a double play. Here, there, they're looking at this is that it commission and then the looking at legislation and that they bring up a legislative filibuster that with yell yeah will the ultimate, the ultimate goal here is that it is to kill the filibuster. The ultimate goal is to pack the court with ideologues of the left.

The ultimate goal is to impose a system upon the United States that is foreign to our judicial philosophy drug constitutional principles into our entire history that is the goal of the left the hard left is now in control and they're pushing the agenda and this idea court packing and don't let Jerry never tell you it's unpacking, that's a bunch of garbage is an attempt to pack the court failed once. I hope it fails again. You think this play is way beyond just court packing it's it's the political plan. This is really for the congressional election, absolutely. Absolutely this is this is a move that that they can II think that they don't have the votes right now even to delay the filibuster. They don't have the votes with Joe made to the Senate but they need something to rally around. They want to make it a race issue. They want to make an infrastructure issue. That's why with the commission.

With this legislation, with people who introduced legislation this is a a year and 1/2 long project to get to doing away with the filibuster and adding four seats. The US Supreme Court see that the far left doing some of the bidding for any vector by the administration. Putting together the the mission to do it and they will try and do this is a way to get out the vote which is much more difficult. The terms that it is Presidential election year so we can keep our outrage of this very high bar to see way too many conservative media outlets say well that's closer said no to this. This is it that that's a scam as to distract you and to say oh this is it ever going to happen. She does it on the votes. Right now she's letting others take this and see how far they can go with this into the election cycle. If they had the votes they be doing it for telling us what they would Fort Worth ACLJ donate online ACLJ.org the American Center for Law and justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be now $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 can make a difference in the world protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ.


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime