This broadcaster has 755 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
April 12, 2021 1:00 pm
Jay Sekulow executive Pres. Biden creates a new commission to study parking. The Supreme Court live from Washington DC Pres. Rosa clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate United Congress of the pack court totally within his right to do that he violated no law. He was legalistic lay absolutely correct, but it was a bonehead idea. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. It was a terrible terrible mistake may and it put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant body, including the Congress and my the most significant body in this country. The Supreme Court of United States of America and now chief counsel for the Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow wonder of words coming back to haunt you.
And that's what's happening here so Joe Biden back in the 1980s when there were discussions about changing my job a court packing you're talking about changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Famously, Franklin Delano Roosevelt with them in a moment.
Try to do that so it adds justices to the court and you Adam when things not to put in your favor right now there's a 63 majority or shortly 54 majority of conservative justices on the court doesn't mean in any particular case. However, I will be decided, but there is a conservative judicial philosophy, leaning into the Supreme Court what Jovan is put together a Presidential commission on the Supreme Court of the United States is done that created that by executive order.
Others a lot in there, including the number of justices how the court works. Let me pick up on a couple of points that they raise in this Executive Order as to what this commission is going to be doing and by the way it was Joe Biden. After all, who said that the Supreme Court that packing the court was a terrible idea bonehead idea put the independence of the judiciary, and specifically the Supreme Court in question. For a decade but I will say we did do when FDR did this attempted to do it and then pulled back that court that conservative leaning court started approving his new deal legislation, so it had a desired effect whether or not it was ultimately a court packing plan he got there, which was not what it said a stock weight to the court and Harry got a wonder with with John Roberts institutional issues. Would this do the same thing or could this do the same thing.
What I think it could be partially successful, and I think it would have its most profound effect on John Roberts that Joe Biden essentially has surrendered to the left's venomous and vitriolic campaign to weaken the court to pave the way, if you will war the left wing's agenda to be fully enforced throughout the United States. They see the Supreme Court as the chief obstacle to a progressive takeover of every single lever of power in the United is exactly what FDR was concerned with the deity in this commission they're going to study case selection rules and practices bring it into that more in the next segment when you're talking about the executive could be exercising control over case selection that's an alarming prospect J because that's not the business of the executive branch of government. We have three branches of government created by the Constitution that are separate and coequal, and they are not to be interfered one with the other that the executive branch that needs to stay the legislative branch that needs to stay in it, and especially the independence of the judiciary, and when the executive branch of government reports to exercise examination into how the Supreme Court thinks its cases and the rules that are applied by the Supreme Court in choosing the cases it's going to hear. That's a dangerous and scary President because it undermines the most important thing and that's the independence of the judiciary get back tomorrow. This packing, the Supreme Court set the new option that the binder ministrations, consider because I can't get there otherwise controlled the judiciary. Because of this 1-800-684-3110 800-684-3110. Guess what you posted.
Shocking development breaking news alert BAC LJ opposes the court lacking a court packing plan which would alter the constitutional setup of the Supreme Court of United States to talk more about that we come back the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those for their faith and covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life and the court said 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 $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 protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online PC 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 life will show you how you are personally support the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry 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 mission life today online ACLJ/let me set the stage for your Friday we got Executive Order from Pres. by a issued an executive order forming what's called officially the Presidential commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.
It's got bipartisan group of experts according to the press release. There are some conservatives on it. It clearly feels more much more to the left lot about former Supreme Court law clerks.
In addition to legal and other scholars. The commissioners include former judges and a couple practitioners.
The interesting aspect of this.
Let me read you what the purpose of the commission is initiated any of you that are constitutionalists should be very concerned about this meet really concerned about this. The commission's purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate born again Supreme Court reform so eager for Supreme Court reform against includes an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals like adding justices to the court, which by the way, does not take a constitutional member just to connect the Congress and passed by both chambers and signed by the President so they could do it.
They wanted to date.
I don't I get to the Senate but this is what the talk about and then the topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate.
In other words, why did this Supreme Court reform start the court's role in the constitutional system. I would think that's what specified in the United States Constitution doesn't need to be a lot of discussion about that. It's been settled since Marbury versus Madison in 1804. You think that what about sum it up, apparently not then it says the length of service and turnover of justices on the court may constitutional amendment to limit and limit the service length, which turns us into political branch which we mistake the membership and size of the court. Don't know what they mean by the membership versus the size except there FDR talk about deputy justices that would be able to vote if the other ones were over 70 in the course. This is the thing we had to watch the most I think besides the numbers the cases, the courts case selection rules and practices. What happens now is called the rule for for just a case comes up to the Supreme Court for justices want to hear a case pending majority before justices want to hear the case.
They can hear the case. But as I said in the first segment is broadcast. FDR's court packing scheme failed in the sense that it did not allow for new justice to be added, but it succeeded.
As far as the factors that it gave to the court approving new deal era legislation that was getting struck earlier like six months earlier and then all of a sudden there was the strange Wesley brought up the point about this kind of implicit intimidation factor not always implicit. I mean that the left-wing Democrats the left-wing people in the dinner party. Try not only to influence the court such as what's going on now but also to intimidate the court remember the famous speech that Chuck Schumer made on the steps of the spring court where he threatened that if they ruled a certain way that they would reap the whirlwind and they would not know what hit them. So you're not bashful about not only trying to change the makeup or influence the court but also intimidating the court and it's it's this alarming the agenda that they not only think that America is a defective place and that our Constitution is a defective document.
They think that somehow the Supreme Court, the Ice Age, which is worked well for a long time is also defective to what they keynote a couple percent of the politics of the soap and interestingly they're not going. This is a House-Senate commission is not a house committee or Senate committee. This is a commission set up by the prep Presidential commission yet agenda really the purpose of this commission. In my view, from a political perspective is convince all 50 members of the United States Senate because that's the biggest hurdle they have to accomplishing this. So RJ I think the commission is really just aim to try to convince the Senators Democrat senators who are on the fence look.
I would make this comment, you read in the description of this commission that it is bipartisan J word bipartisan in that description is doing a whole lot of work. I went through this list of commissioners this morning and I will tell you this. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is a commission with a predetermined conclusion. So if this is the excuse that you know Sen. Cinema or Sen. Sen. mansion used to support court pack packaging.
It is a very thinly veiled excuse they need to be very careful so things were to get to each of the breakdowns, what they can look at than anything that just jumps out at us. Is this the courts case selection rules and procedures.
The court sets those, but there's not a a surcharge rule for except by the Congress or by the President. It's with the court determines its own rules on the basis upon which it will review cases and case selection in that line, it won't, but the commission will review the courts case selection rules and practices I think sets up a Internet has the executive really interfering with the judicial branch. While that's the scary part of this day. The idea that the executive branch of government. The President and the administration is going to look into how the court picks the cases that is going to hear absolutely ruins the balance of power established by the Constitution of the United States in the 18th century in which we have functioned along since the founding of the Republic and the confirmation in the affirmation of the Constitution is no business of the executive branch of government to determine how the Supreme Court thinks the cases it's going to hear that that that startles me and terrifies me and upsets me terribly as a constitutionalists historian and a scholar and a practicing lawyer that the President of the United States and his administration or the executive branch of government is going to tell the Chief Justice and the associate justices how you think you cases will you benefit, which are knocking the pig that's none of their business quite put simply trying to make it their business. I mean, and this is this is a commission that's got an agenda they been given an agenda here. There's no doubt about that.
The agenda is to do exactly what Pres. Biden wants to do and that's to grow the federal government, especially the executive branch of the federal government at the expense of the other branches of the government having a Presidential commission on the Supreme Court that would have been unheard of under even Pres. Kennedy wing of what you mean a Presidential commission on the Supreme Court, what business is it of yours to inquire into the business of the court is a veiled attempt to expand the power of the executive branch of government, beyond the limits set by the Constitution and is not very veiled attempt at stands that you go through the list of these potential commissioners, and in scary left-leaning academics, Harvard, Yale, Oxford Princeton. These academics who have written the left is subject of never been in a courtroom and practice law in their lives. Politicians and roses. Sen. Kennedy call them it's a scary prospect and one that should alarm constitutional scholars and constitutionalists. People all over the country. Very much so Jim Saki, a prospector for the White House over the President was asked about this in the press conference. Take a listen. Present violence in 1983 for machine for a boneheaded idea. The arthritis ally and see if it is a well first he said the panels being asked to do a number of take a number of steps, including the pros and cons on exactly that issue. They will also be looking at the courts are on the constitutional system. The length of service and turnover of justice on the court justices on the court. The membership and size of the court and the courts case selection rules and practices in the makeup of this commission, which was vital for the President.
What is there are progressives on the court there conservatives on the court. People will present different opinions and different points of view and then I have a report at the end of hundred and 80 days I would repeat something she said she doesn't deny that this is about corporate. The question was court packing notes, adding justices to basically get your way and she doesn't deny that. She said the pack.
The panels being asked to do a number of things to take a number of steps, including the pros and cons of exactly that issue. The question Harry of that issue was court packing adding members to the court, absolutely. So this is simply a surreptitious effort to engage in what Joe Biden has labeled a bone headed idea that's number one number two.
This constitutes an attempt by the executive branch to make the Supreme Court, in particular, a secondary branch. Imagine the Supreme Court committing sorry a creating a commission to examine executive power, right, so essentially what Joe Biden is attempting to do is to dissolve the notion that there are 30 equal branches of government.
Instead, he wants essentially absolute power. I would think that John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the United States would take offense to this and take offense to it because is exactly what Prof. Hutchison just that and that is the idea that the executive branch is going to look at how the Supreme Court decides to cases. Forget the tenure of the justices for moment forget the number of justices for moment, but the internal working practices of the Supreme Court of the United States as if the executive branch, the commission could do this.
I don't think there's a lot of these things to be done without a constitutional member. Frankly, but point is that they're looking they're digging deep now quickly fan what is it been any congressional responsiveness yet images happen. Sen. Rubio and a bunch of others. J. I started trying to preempt this. They have a constitutional amendment introduced that would limit the seats to nine so yeah there is action and I think there might be some action in the states as well. You need to support the work of the ACLJ will bring you this information bringing you this analysis are knocking to get anyplace else is the this decision by this commission will affect each and every one of us each and every person will be impacted by this commission support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.I will take your calls and comments. Are you reacting to this 1-800-684-3110 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 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 cold dishes like it will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pieces were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later, when Obama care means to discover many ways your membership is empowering the right question for 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 faith covering 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 comes $20, $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 protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. You forgive today online ACLJ commission now being established by the President, a commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. One of things to do is look at the historical background of other periods in the nation's history when the Supreme Court's role nominations advice and consent process were subject to credible critical assessment prompted proposals for reform. Now there was some in that and then 1850s. The biggest one the most historically noted one and he of course is the date court packing plan of FDR. But let's put that in historical context of what was going on what was happening.
J was that the President had gotten a big reelection victory in 1936 and he thought he had a mandate to rule that was sweeping and all-inclusive and were among those with these new deal legislation that he put into into effect in all the laws of the pastor through Congress passed to his efforts and his initiatives and what happened is that a conservative suit largely conservative Supreme Court was ruling that those new deal era legislation pieces were unconstitutional and Roosevelt say well I can fix that and introduce what was called the judicial procedures reform bill of 1930s heaven. The idea of which was a gave the power to the President to appoint an additional justices to the United States Supreme Court up to a maximum of six that would've made 15 justices for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and six months.
Okay, the Judiciary act of 1869, which had been in effect at the time and still is, says one Supreme Court Chief Justice and eight associate justices well what Roosevelt's plan did was because the Iran the wrath of Democrats his own party, John Nance Garner, the vice President United States called it an absolute outrageous attempt to pack the court and even and when I think this is very interesting because I've done some little research on the subject, Henry Ashurst, who is Democratic chair of the judiciary committee held that Pres. Roosevelt's bill and the committee for one hundred and 65 days and he was a Democrat. He said this committee is not going to be rushed into anything. No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry, that is the model of this committee when the President of the Majority Leader of the Senate died was a Democrat. The bell lost its power, and eventually it failed. But what it did. As you pointed out earlier, is it caused a lot of the justice to say well we better watch out because they're coming after us and a lot of the new deal legislation was passed as constitutional. That is, by the Supreme Court, but by then, the Supreme Court justices had retired and the majority of them were appointed by Roosevelt, but the plan failed miserably and that is a lesson of history that we have got to realize today.
Keep it at nine. Justice Ginsburg said that is been historically the case is the appropriate number to keep it. It is been tried and tested through time, don't make these judges, politicians carry it right.
They did not get the court packing plan through Congress. By the way, that's you can take a constitutional amendment to add justices to the court. It's an act of Congress and signed by the President but it did impact sprinkler historians believe it impacted the outcome of a series of cases involving the new deal with a case of going completely the other way. Just months before, and then when this discussion took place and became this robust discussion throughout the country shockingly decision started folding in favor of Pres. Roosevelt's new Deal precisely number of those decisions were five poor decisions and so that birth particular saying about the court. A vote change in time saved mine.
In other words by moving 5 to 4 in favor of Pres. Roosevelt's proposals that save the rest of the court from being fully influenced by court packing, but it placed implicit pressure if not explicit pressure on the court and the court move left. Essentially, the court accepted the largest expansion of the executive branch in US history, at least up until that time, and this is precisely the Avenue the road down which Joe Biden wants to go now but by the way there's there's damn well known Democrats, including that one Barb Bob associate producers pointed out that Harry Reid, former Democratic Majority Leader event said we better be very careful in saying that we need to expand the Supreme Court quote.
I think we should be very very careful in doing so I've no problem with commission but I think that the commission is going to come back and disappoint a lot of people because I think you to come back and say we should kinda believe it alone I think would be inappropriate this time. After the long history have in this country have term limits for judges. I think we better be very very careful in saying that we need to expand the Supreme Court. I think Harry Reid is right, I rarely say that. However, Wes just taken a good look at this commission in this commission. If you are just taking a Democratic vote in the little be Democrats are big D Democrat actually Democratic process schemes in one direction only put about Michael absolutely again and we all know that academia, for the most part his mood far, far, far to the left looking at the makeup of this unit.
There are eight supposedly Rick conservatives on this commission. Rest of them are liberal Democrats but looking through the makeup of it. There are there's one former federal judge Thomas Griffith. There is one executive from the NAACP and Michael Waldman, who is head of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Other than that all of the other 33 members are professors, and academia is far to the left.
You know and and I don't mean to disparage professors-great people. But here's the deal you know why not put some judges and practicing attorneys on this commission. Why not put a couple of members of Congress who who have served as judges in the past, but none of that is there and without disparaging professors you.I would have a person who has experience arguing in front of the court ahead of someone who simply has a theory in these 33 professors. Most of them left-leaning. They have a lot of theories about the Supreme Court not much experience fan to change the number of justices. People need understand this does not take a constitutional limit does not take a constitutional amendment takes an act of Congress and J you read a quote from Harry Reid. I think he is large and right in, in large part II do disagree with him on one very important point, though I don't think the commission is again advised to leave this alone at last I look at the I look to the members of this and I think they'll come back in and actually advise court packing and that will be the excuse. The President Biden tries to make to push it but I J your analogy about never to Congress exactly spot on.
This would make the Supreme Court more like Congress. Do you think the American people want the Supreme Court to be more like Congress not like there's a chance they do, but they're not putting this Commission Pl., Harry because nothing will happen. Absolutely not. So essentially this is an extension of the raucous 2018 campaign to disqualify Judge Brett Cavanaugh for the United States Supreme Court.
That effort was provoked by fear that Planned Parenthood and its license to define one's own authenticity as a private prop project might be overturned and then the level of hysteria has gone up ever since Pres. Tromp nominated Judge Amy Cody Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.
So the left sees the United States Supreme Court as the chief obstacle to a complete takeover of every aspect of our lives and all of the American people. All of our listeners should be engaged in opposing this particular effort so obviously monitor this really late really closely fact the better team in Washington DC office is already putting together a very lengthy Memo of everybody that's on this commission I'm holding up my hands right now. This was produced by Bennett Seema from our DC office today were on top of this. Your support of the ACLJ allows us to get on top of these issues and report back to you with concrete ways to handle it support the work of the ACL data matching challenge email@example.com that's ACLJ.org back with more in the next half-hour of 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 will be managed $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in the work we do. Protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms are most important to you and your family. You forgive today online ACLJ.live from Washington DC and Justice Jay Sekulow is signed an executive order creating what's called a Presidential commission on the Supreme Court of the United States were calling it the Presidential commission on how to repack the Supreme Court and we say pack the Supreme Court. I want to define what that means early on because there has been attempts in our nation's history. To do that with nine justices that's by legislation is not mandated the number in the Constitution of nine so the question is Andy here. We talk about court packing.
Let's define this for the audience. Okay court packing is something that really was the phrase was coined in 1937 by a person whose name was Edward Romo. I have looked this up. This was an attempt by Pres. Roosevelt to react to the Supreme Court declaring unconstitutional much of his new deal legislation. Roosevelt was saying that it was impinging upon the power of the Congress and they that they could not do this. The administration was becoming absolutely humongous and gargantuan and the acts of the new deal were taking over and violating the Constitution of the United States that the Supreme Court was saying, so Roosevelt said I get around this and so he put forth the judicial procedures reform bill of 1937 and what it did was it said that they have passed the President, have the power to appoint an additional justice to the US Supreme Court up to a maximum of six additional justices that would've given us 15 judges for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and six months now. The Judiciary act of 1869, it said no.
Nine justices one Chief Justice and eight associate justices so the Congress of the United States reacted against us in many ways, John Nance Garner was the vice President and Roosevelt's vice President said not a good idea.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time a defendant defendant, a Democrat, said this was a should of been a defendant to do on the prosecutor said no. Not a good idea held up the bill for hundred and 65 days but so that ultimately, the bill failed and the idea of packing the court with justices who hold your political views and who don't do what the Constitution says is what court packing means pack the court up with politicians in black robes and they will do what you want is the President and the administration once that has failed and failed in our history is going to fail.
I trust and hope again with this scheme the President. Biden is putting forth.
This is a Presidential commission, not on did advise him about this that and the other that set forth in the mandate J. This is a commission that has been established to advocate court packing a lot. FDR is there an appetite for any of this man in the United States House or Senate. There's deftly an appetite United States house JI mean Speaker Pelosi is said that she swore that and look there is an appetite in the U.S. Senate.
The question is, is an appetite enough and I honestly think this conversation the one were having with our members right now is can play a big role in whether or not there's a big enough appetite.
Jan just when I look back for a minute.
You remember the campaign for President.
Of course, Joe Biden spent basically the entire campaign, refusing to answer the question what he would do on this issue.
So you're entirely correct that there can be a legislative change to the number of justices, but J the person who's putting this forward. Now refuse to go to the American voter and give us his position. I was entirely inappropriate limiting what he wants do nothing Sears. The topics that will be examined including this includes the genesis of the reform debate. The court's role in our constitutional system which again set forth in the Constitution to her to figure that one out. The Lenten service and turnover of justice on the court.
Lifetime appointments may be one of the men that the membership and size of the court.
That's the court packing and then this is the one that got me just as equally worry in the courts case selection rules and practices. What is the executive doing telling the judiciary how to run its operations to talk about all of this and more.
Take your calls at 800-684-3110.
Get your comments in as well to fight back on this folks is this is kind of home cooking here.
You know what the results could be. You have all these meetings you know where the results can be support the work of the ACL dinner matching challenge campaign ACLJ.WordPress ACL data. The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.
Whether it's defending religious freedom detecting those persecuted covering 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 $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 protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. You forgive today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. 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 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 discover the many ways you membership in the ACLJ is powering the right question free copy mission in life today online ACLJ/information about this court packing scheme came up a lot during the debates and Joe Biden was asked about this and he gave responses like this. He said that Trump always wants you to take the eye up the ball change the subject, unlocking a player's game. He blames not answering on the on Trump. He said that the taking stance right now, whether as presently would seek to increase the numbers from court justice will play right into the hands of Pres. Donald Trump on then in Arizona. He said voters will know my opinion on court packing when the election is over Harry.
Well Joe Biden Joe Biden's payments because he doesn't want to take responsibility with respect to hard decision-making. He wants to present himself as a pleasant nice guy. But the reality is, Joe Biden is now being fully control, if not managed by left-wingers and so he may present this pleasant, likable demeanor to the American people, but at the end of the day the Joe Biden administration is governing as a far left administration. They recognize that the chief obstacle to continue progressive change, leading to, for instance, the green new deal to national socialism, perhaps with the 10 of the Chinese Communist Party that obstacle is the United States Supreme Court and so they are intent in my opinion on packing the court as soon as possible. Here's what Justice Breyer appointed by President Clinton thinks about court packing 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. The court is guided by legal principle, not politics, structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that matter. Perception talks about trust right trust with nine members of the court and then in an interview. This is our number 26 buying it, which again when he was running was confronted with this trust issue in this issue, court packing, take a listen to this concern for no no I don't. I'm not going to play his game. He loved to talk about.
I've already sent there no voters with don't need to know you and my concern now exactly, but my concern is not only his dishonesty and is avoiding the issue back then as a candidate, but I think, quite frankly, that what he is looking for because he's not a man anymore. If he ever was of strong principles.
I think he's looking for this commission to give him political cover.
I think Harry Reid is wrong on the point when he reaches he doesn't think they'll come back and recommend this.
I think they will horse and Joe Biden will say, well, folks, you know is what the commission said I guess were going to go along with it because he lacks principle of the commission and he doesn't have the authority to implement anything they would still have to either work with the constant of the constitutional process which in some cases might require just legislation. In other cases may require a constitutional amendment that tried this commission says that it says in the minutes birth bill that Pres. Doug Biden signed that it has no substantive rights or are known nothing that can come from it becomes legislation. That's gotta go through the Congress, but the impact of it with all these alleged professors and scholars who are on it can be great and I agree that well, but Biden likes to give the idea of a benign avuncular figure whose kind and middle-of-the-road but he is being completely managed by the last is completely being managed by the progressives. The fact that he picked this commission and the members of the commission on. I looked at it. That's a startling and alarming array of people.
Let me tell you is going to come across. I know ultimately with the recommendation that we do this that and the other to the Supreme Court and start messing with the court that instead stood the test of time since the beginning of the Republic and with would be a terrible thing that I fear for the future of the Supreme Court with a Biden administration. Let me go to the phone. Here, one 864 3110 Julie is calling from California online one if you want to talk to Jean calls as well. 800-684-3110 Julie, go ahead, I think, what can we do about challenge think we can do right now in your ACLJ money because you can actually think of the center will open something about that on my question.
Is there any other branch of government that can clean commission to study the principles for all him telling them what they court may initiate a lawsuit or continue to get up but the really important issue here every muscle. Nothing on this and that's this idea of separation of powers of the executive branch and anyone in these coming months to the executive branch is looking at this, they probably the right to look at it because the commission could do anything, but it really infringes on separation of powers.
When you start say were to look to see how the court case makes its case selections its rules and its practices absolutely Cerro. There are several things going on at once. First, I think our President, Biden would have been well advised to ask Congress to create a commission to look at this because it's within the Congress's power and purview to change the United States Supreme Court number two.
I think if you actually look at the commission created by Joe Biden. It doesn't carry with it any positive indications that it is indeed trustworthy.
So essentially, it's a political exercise and I think Justice Breyer was absolutely correct that the reputation of the Supreme Court is grounded in trusts, but this trust will indeed be undermined.
Why because Joe Biden has always proven himself an trustworthy gap, but be the impact of this though is already being felt, because you know Andy, this is being discussed and will get particular from plant in Washington.
This is how it was an executive order. It was a big deal. It was made about our product. This was, he said I'm not to tell you my position at the labrum elected vice if we can figure it out. Now we know now we know only I knew exactly when he was asked the question they would never answer because if he answered it. Yes, it should stay nine then his progressive left-wing supporters would be furious if he said it should change then he was going to take a position that we are that it should stay the same, that he was going to take a position that was consistent with a conservative leaning all the constitutional and swing so as not to do it because he is not a man of principles in this and similar in when it gets down to it, he does not have the intestinal fortitude that it takes to make the hard decisions so endpoints commissions and I think what Harry Hutchison said earlier, is very interesting. John Robert should appoint a commission to examine the executive branch of government in light of the Constitution, or ultimately ruled that anything that was ruled on by the Supreme Court by the God Congress if they come across a could be unconstitutional as well. For the Supreme Court ultimately may hold the key to its own life. But those are the kinds of things that are going on in Washington right now and that we have to be cognizant of leave the Supreme Court alone. I sense West that the problem here is that this based on your analysis of the group put together to suggest major changes. They are major changes in his force that goes I think the cake is baked and if they were to go through this if Congress were to go along with changing these aspects of the court. It takes the only branch of our government, which is by design and theory, nonpolitical, and not only makes it political it makes it blatantly political, it becomes basically 1/3 political branch of the government that should alarm every American. I wanted Bob, let's take Frank's call on line to heat not mate what Frank pain on the lining of your first call, we come back from the break.
They let me talk to you that were getting a lot of calls about what Congress can or cannot do here. This is all new is MEP's.
Let's go over again what do Marco Rubio propose based on a constitutional amendment sure both you and the court packed the Congress would have to pass piece of legislation to add judges but they can act preemptively J and that's what Sen. Rubio wants to do. He's got a constitutional amendment that would limit the seats on the Supreme Court to nine. I actually think momentum for that is can a building. By the way that African begin in the states as well.
I know that Oklahoma majority floor leader John Echols is talk about something similar. We've had conversations with them so I see think momentum will build on the other side of this.
And here's the other component of the J politically with the mass of the electorate. This is gonna be wildly unpopular yes can be popular with the left base, but J when it comes to winning elections and actually putting seats in Congress in both the House and the Senate. This is not an idea this can be popular and honestly I think many people in Washington DC know that's why they're a little nervous but there the commission's will points out is going to be holding public meetings to try to look like congressional committees.
That's either to try to build support for this.
That's what your support of the ACLJ is so critical. Stand with us in our matching challenge campaign ACLJ.org, any money you donate to get course tax-deductible. We had matching gift for ACLJ that brings you this broadcast of these experts every single day it's opposition papers out there. It's our ability to go to Speak for you ACLJ.we come back your phone calls 800-684-3110 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 Gold edition like it will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the industry and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is powering the right 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 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 $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 protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online ACLJ.
Yes, everyone. A lot of this court packing discussion another's commission I think is political payback.
In a sense for the nomination.
Confirmation of gore, such capital, and especially Amy Barrett at the end of the President's term that is what's bothering them and there's now 863 conservative majority. In most cases. Lotta cases. It's 54.
In some cases it can go. The other 11 on an individual case, but it does tell you why that why they're doing this and then Joe binds them all was announced during the campaign, because that would get everybody all nervous. But that's what I plan to do it again. Lotta concerns are lastingly broadcast. By the way, 400 unfilled slots in this administration right now and instead they want to turn their attention to see how the executive branch can interfere with how the Supreme Court selects cases let's go to Frank is calling Florida online to you want to talk to is 800-684-3110 Frank Marco Rubio majority or something about concurrence of a majority of states to make a constitutional. This is a constitutional amendment is a very difficult process land and and I'm not saying it's not a worthy effort, but you have to get two thirds of the 50 states, getting first into the house and Senate and then two thirds of the 50 states. Yet the threshold in the states. 338 states after ratified Janssen. It's a threshold it's very high. Although I will tell you if you see the federal government starting to push its balance to this extent, this might be a kind of thing that would give it momentum and I would just say this, at least on the messaging issue.
J that's where the Senate needs to be focused on our Marco Rubio's bill but you know it's you know would be a lot easier than for doing any and Harry to talk about this a lot easier to do would beget legislation to the House of Representatives that up to the Senate but just goes from 9 to 13. Any well that's a possibility, but also to limit now you know know the Congress and the Judiciary act of 1869 establishes "would consist of a Chief Justice and eight associate justices so it's not a constitutional amendment is not necessary. The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, but the Constitution does not have a number in there that is always been established via legislation. Today we have a President we have a vice President. We have various cabinet members, officers, various agencies appointed under the Constitution, but the number of justices.
Although I think number nine is correct is not specified in the Constitution, so they may not. Lotta skinny through it. They might require countries limit changing the length of term but I question the constitutionality of the executive telling the President or the legislature. 24. How the court to decide cases or dictate cases, but changing the number does not take a constitutional amendment clearly absolutely, that would be one of the easiest changes to make, and I think your question was very very on point because neither house Democrats nor Senate Democrats are known for anything approaching principal so I think if the in the end of the day it will all come down to one thing political expediency and I think if you look at Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
Political expediency will push them in favor of packing the United States Supreme Court are 800-684-3110 for your call is 1-800-684-3110 let's go to Jim who was calling a life where I Jim particular call recall.
I've been listening for several minutes now waiting my turn to get on it. A lot of my questions have been answered and least explained by your great speakers there, but if if the commission if you know the commission is obviously skewed.
It's set up it's it's predestined to give the predicted results in an all all these other issues at experts are speaking about how wrong this would be to change the numbers of justices and so on. And then the speaker just mentioned are you will discuss it. Rubio's hyper proposal by way of an amendment would be almost impossible to get through and then it numbering the number of justices and doesn't even need a constitutional amendment. I just find myself needing more encouraging news that their neck and abilities persist or just push it through is not it's not it's not a free-for-all.
Try to be realistic.
Some of the changes that they might propose like changing the life tenure of appointment will require a constitutional amendment adding justices though as I said does not.
That is within their authority. What what a scary thought they would even consider. Now this is not only political revenge.
This is a politically upper opportunistic Drive J and that kind of action and the motive behind it because it is so blatantly political yet shameful intermediate says that some of these people they care more about their political agenda. Then they do.
Our country and the rich history of our country and how our constitutional Republic is set up with three separate branches of government fan from your view. Would they have a chance of getting that through an exchange of numbers or anything. The Santa Fe market. Yet I think were gonna win this but I certainly have a chance.
Here's what I would tell Jim to watch for you been going through this whole description of what they're asking for in this Executive Order, and I think this is strategic that JI think they've thrown everything at the wall in this so then what can happen is, the commission will come back and say look not to recommend all of those things were just gonna recommend this one nuanced minor thing, and that nuanced minor things as they will describe it is the court packing. I think they'll come back with maybe just that recommendation are one or two more and I'll try to pitch at this so called centrist senators as a moderate change.
That's what Jim got a watch for but I think we can win in the end jalousie glass call here which is going from California were to go ahead on their thank you God blessing to all of you want to say basically just the common person here and and from what I've seen, all I see is control all they wanted control. They can even handle the border, let alone anything else and and and it's just very frustrating there. They're trying to turn this country inside out commission together with I think very clear. Harry agenda where they want to go. I think it's worth reiterating what they're talking about the look of the Supreme Court, not just for the life tenure of the justices or the number of justices that should be there like tenure courses Supreme Court is mended by the Constitution. But this what they're saying.
The length of service and turnover justices the membership and size of the court. The court's case selection rules and practices that the courts case election rules and practices are set by the court.
It's their branch of government absolutely bought. I think Biden administration once to deprive the United States Supreme Court of the right to hear certain cases. So for instance if you consider the proposed bill HR one, which basically expands federal power over state and local elections. It's very likely that that the Biden administration, along with progressive Democrats would want to prevent the United States Supreme Court, at least as currently constituted from actually hearing the constitutionality of such a law is a fan with 15 seconds but we need some help here were on top of this. Your team is up there are on top of this argument talking United States Senate in anticipation of this day more than hundred thousand members of Artie signed with this by doing that J it's going build our voice in DC and make the impact even greater support of the ACLJ allows this to happen so we can stand guard and now protect the judiciary. Your support makes a big difference. ACLJ.org anybody you know they were getting a matching work ACLJ.ORT mixer getting her emails and alerts as well.
Not great way to stay in contact with his followers on twitter and other social media buttons at 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 $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ