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

Breaking news today on Sekulow as Democrats announce a plan to pack the Supreme Court by hostile takeover. We'll talk about that more today on Sekulow. Live from Washington DC, Sekulow Live. The Republicans stole two seats on the Supreme Court and now it is up to us to repair that damage. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. This should scare every single American regardless of where you stand politically. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Now in formation on the reforms that they may try to push forward into the federal courts, specifically on the U.S. Supreme Court, we now have members of Congress, including the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, bucking the Biden administration, bucking also Nancy Pelosi, who said she wasn't ready for this, Dick Durbin also said not ready for this, but moving forward, they're in front of the Supreme Court right now, speaking out, they're putting forward, they've actually got the legislation I've got in my hands right here, it's two pages, it's to add four justices to the Supreme Court. All four will be selected by, if they got their way, by Joe Biden. They acknowledge that 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 slim, because the Democrat majority's slim in the House, but the Democrats that are there are the most left. If they could keep it together, if the Democrats could stay together, they could get it through the House.

Now, they also are using this as a double-edged sword here. Not only are they doing what Wes Smith has called a hostile takeover of the U.S. government by packing the Supreme Court, because that affects all branches of government, but you also have at the same time, and I think this is fundamentally important, they know that they'd have to do away with the legislative filibuster in order to do this. Now, they just put the, I think it was just Monday or Tuesday of this week that we discussed the commission being formed that was supposed to look at the whole Supreme Court issue.

And of course, we didn't like the language of the charter of the commission was problematic to begin with. But now, Andy, you've got them, before the commission is even, the ink is dry on their hands, you've got House Democrats and Senate Democrats introducing a, let me just read it. It says that it'll amend U.S. Code Title 28 and says a Chief Justice of the United 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. Well, they've already made up their mind, haven't they, Jay? That's the purpose of having a commission. If you've made up your mind that you're already gonna expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices, and that's exactly what has happened here, the commission seems to be redundant. There's no need to have a commission if you've already decided that you're gonna expand the court by adding four justices. And it seems that there's a disconnect perhaps between the White House and Congress in terms of what the plan is. But the Congress, Nadler and Hank Johnson and Matt Markey and so forth have already gone on and made their decision that they're gonna hostilely take over the Supreme Court of the United States. And that's exactly what they're doing, and they're doing it by adding judges to the court. But Jordan, politically, this is a test run, right?

Absolutely, it's a test run. So Joe Biden doesn't have to support it, Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to support it, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, they don't have to support it. But they get to see kind of how many people in the House, how many members of the House will already be on board with this, how many in the Senate are on board with this and this idea of four. So they're putting forward a specific idea to not just, we need to do this, but they're actually saying what the numbers should be, how they want it chosen, they were of course chosen by President Biden, all four.

This would be a hostile takeover. So what Nancy Pelosi will do is say, well, what's the reaction like in my caucus, and same with Chuck Schumer, and then Joe Biden can kind of say, well, I think we should wait on my commission, or this will be the model for the commission, this kind of legislation. So take your calls, 1-800-684-3110. What does this mean for the future of the Supreme Court, the future of our country, if Democrats have their way with this, 1-800-684-3110.

We'll be right back on Secular. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're 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, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched.

A $10 gift becomes $20, a $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be 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 to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Dan Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. You know, it's interesting that what we're looking, I believe it's a test run. I believe that Joe Biden would sign onto this in a heartbeat if he could do it. I believe vice President Harris would, I think Pelosi would, I think Schumer would, but they got to see the votes. They got to get the American people's reaction. So their initial reaction from leadership, top leadership is I don't necessarily support this action as we're seeing from Pelosi. But when you went to Dick Durbin, it was not right now.

It wasn't, I don't ever support this. So this is the guys you put out to test it. You put out the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, he needs to move to the left, put out people like Hank Johnson in Georgia, Georgia is getting a lot of attention right now in voting issues and issues like that. So it makes sense to put him forward. He's also the vice chair of a committee on the courts in the country and they're trying to explain to the American people in a fairly backhanded way, hey, we can do this whenever we want. That's how the constitution is written. That's true, except for it hasn't been tried, it has not been tried since FDR.

That's the last time it was tried and it failed. And this court makeup has been the same since 1869. So since after the civil war, this has been the same nine, we've had the same nine number, the only person to try to change that was told no by his own party who controlled both the House and the Senate, very similar to right now with Joe Biden, except for he had better margins.

Yeah, 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 why 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 have faith in the Supreme Court by a majority more than they've had in recent years and certainly more than they have in Congress. So you got to understand what this is. It's pure politics, but it's politics, folks, that's very dangerous.

You would give four appointments to the current President of the United States. That's because by the way, Stephen Breyer's not resigning. So I'm sure this is all part of the play, Harry, of what's going on here.

Absolutely. So someone famously said this particular bill is a test of principle. And we know certainly from their actions that the Democrats are intending on doing what? 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 Supreme Democrats are intent on undermining that trust and moving forward with a radical court packing plan that President Biden said in 1983 that that idea was boneheaded. In 19, I'm sorry, in 2020, Biden said the American people do not deserve to know his position.

I guess 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 saying, well, I'm not in favor of it right now, I want this commission to work, to me it's not chance that the commission's announced on Monday with one of the goals of changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, among other things that are very, very dangerous, okay? And then at the same time, you got Senator Markey 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, the House resolution has been introduced as a judiciary act of 2021. Wes, you called it the hostile takeover of the US government.

It is. It is the 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 complete a hostile takeover of the US government. I think two of the most telling things they've said in front of the Supreme Court just now, two quotes, Senator Markey says, democracy is in jeopardy today. He's actually quite correct, but it's not in jeopardy because we have nine justices.

It's 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.

It is that kind of insanity that we're witnessing. But Jordan, they're looking at trying to pick up four seats. That's what they're trying to do. Yeah, they want four seats on the Supreme Court chosen by Joe Biden. This would be in line with if they go the route of getting rid of the filibuster. This is a move to the midterms to try to make a modern issue.

Usually the party, when you're the President and you've got the house of the Senate, you lose those branches. And so this is, again, it's a push to try to give a rallying issue to the left. They need the left. And they're also, I think we'll try to make this an issue about race. No surprise who they chose to put this forward. People out of Georgia, congressmen out of Georgia, where these issues are getting focused on right now.

So can you make an issue about race in the midterm elections? So let me ask, I got to, yeah, exactly right. So let's go to Than Bennett first and I got a question for Andy, but then process here.

So what's happened? I mean, Nancy Pelosi said she doesn't really want this, but of course it's being introduced and you got the commission. This is the commission just was announced on Monday, but they make the legislation. What is the process here? Well I'd start with that. I mean, Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden can say anything that they want, Jay, but if they can get the votes in the house and the Senate, all three of those people will be on board.

They're now in black and white, so you have to take this seriously. The process begins in the house judiciary committee and the Senate judiciary committee. If those committees, uh, reported the bill out either favorably or unfavorably, it could get a vote on the floor of the house and the Senate and Jay, look, the Democrats currently hold a two 18 to two 12 advantage in the house of representatives. So they could only lose two votes as currently constituted, uh, to move it through the house. And of course the Senate is a 50 50 split. That's why it ties into that debate over the legislative filibuster. But as we have said on this broadcast, uh, all week, Jay, 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. Now let me play for you what Senator Markey said just minutes ago. Expanding the court is 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 it's a twin edge.

It's a twin edge thing. But let me go to Andy quick on this. Then I got something Jordan. I'm gonna ask you about this filibuster, but let me, Andy, the court has been expanded before and that's true, but it has not been expanded in over a hundred years. Well over a hundred and 20, 40 years I guess. That's exactly right, Jay. The Supreme court of the United States was constituted by the judiciary act of 1869 to have nine members. It says a chief justice and eight Supreme court justices. The last time an 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 had been appointed by his predecessors.

So he says, oh, I can get around this. I'll just add some more justices to the court for every justice at 70 and a half, I'll add another justice. So I'll have 15 justices. But what happened with that is that his own party, the Democrats shot it down. The chairman of the house judiciary committee in 1937 who was a Democrat held up the bill for 165 days.

The majority leader of the Senate died and therefore he couldn't press the forward of the bill and the bill eventually died, but new justices were appointed who then went in to filling in the vacancies of the other justices and approved the new deal legislation. But we have been with a Supreme court, uh, at nine members for over 80 years and it needs to stay that way. You don't need politicians in robes.

It's the most sacred branch of the three of government in my estimation. 1869. That's a lot more than 80. Yeah. It's been 130, 130, 150 years.

It's been the same for 150 years. Yeah. And then, but also they want the, they want the filibuster changed. Right. And in the midst of this, they throw out, of course to do this, we'll have to get rid of the filibuster. And that's because there's no way that he could get to 60 votes in any way after the next midterm.

And, and I don't even know if they'd have the votes for it if they did away with the filibuster. That's the thing. It's interesting, but it's a buildup. It's a buildup. It's trying to make you accept that this is an okay idea to just hand a President four new Supreme Court justice picks, um, lifetime appointments.

They're not changing that. So it's four lifetime appointments. It's packing the court to the left, far left. Um, and, and 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 die on this Hill politically, but he's going to use it as part of the voting rights push to try and turn out voters in the midterms, kind of scaring people to turn out. And this is going to be part of it. So this is just day one of what is probably a multi-year strategy lead was not multi-year a year and a half strategy, get to the midterms and try to actually hold on to the house and Senate. Yeah. So this is what you got.

So the political play on this is pretty clear. Let me, let's talk about what we need to do here. So we want to, I think nine is the number. So does justice late justice Ginsburg.

So does justice Briar nine has served the country well, doesn't mean you win every case. We did. We don't.

You win a lot of them. You lose, you lose some. That's just the way it is. But that's how checks and balances work in government. They want to undo that. It is a hostile takeover of the government. You want to fight a hostile takeover of the government support the work of the ACLJ.

So our team on Capitol Hill right now on top of this and bring it to your home in this broadcast today with deep analysis. Get the work of the ACLJ, especially as matching challenge campaign. As we fight back now on a hostile takeover of the U S government river, you have throughout the month of April to make this donation. Your donation will be matched. We have a group of donors that will match every donation through the month of April. So March important April, so important also to the ACLJ donate today, be right back with secretary Pompeo. Anyone in society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you were saying. When you stand with the American center for law and justice to defend the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn it's called mission life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe V Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of mission life today, online at ACLJ.org slash gift at the American center for law and justice, we're 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, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be matched a $10 gift becomes $20 a $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. The folks are speaking out on this, especially those who have served in the highest levels of our US government at the federal level. That includes our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State who's joining us now. Secretary Pompeo, I want to go right to you on this because you've been outspoken about it. It sounds like to me that you put forward these four or five members of Congress to kind of throw the test out there about what they'd like to do with court packing, four new justices, all appointed by Joe Biden, get rid of the filibuster, and as you point out in some of your tweets, to me I think it'll turn on two things as they test this. One is we have to do this to protect the voting rights, so they're going to try to make it a race issue, and second, it will be an issue on abortion as always.

Jordan, nine, nine. It works. It's constitutional. It reflects a central understanding about how the constitution works in checks and balances.

Your point's exactly right. This is a power grab. I remember, Jordan, they talked about us and the Trump administration undoing institutions. They're trying to add a couple of states, trying to get rid of the filibuster. Now they're going to try and see if they can't convince enough Americans that the idea of packing the court to their political bias is the right thing to do. This is at the center of the American tradition, and we've got to do everything we can to stop it. I know the ACLJ will be very much at the center of this fight.

We certainly are. Mike, you sent out a tweet today that says, our Supreme Court justices uphold the rule of law and not the emotion of law. Packing the Supreme Court to tilt favorable outcomes brings partisan politics into the courtroom.

This is the last place we need political games, but it's kind of a, I said this earlier, it's a dual sword here. They want to pack the court with four new selections and get rid of the legislative filibuster and use that as the reason why to do it. So this, as Justice Breyer said, I mean, we just had a piece on during the break. We're recording Justice Breyer, which I never thought I'd see in my... But that's great.

And he's booted with me a couple of times, not a lot, but probably 30, 40%. But here's my question. They're really trying to do a double thing here. I mean, they want to pack the court and get rid of the filibuster at the same time using the court packing to get rid of the filibuster. Yeah, the two notions are important that they go together because they can't get one without the other. And in tandem, they think they've got an argument they can make.

You began or Jordan began by talking about race. They will use this issue as a wedge to divide the American people and try and 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 into nothing more than a political rubber stamp for their progressive ideas. Those twin actions, the efforts on the filibuster and the efforts to pack the court go alongside of each other.

They are complimentary and they will push on each of them just as far and as fast as they can. I think we should play Justice Breyer's quote for our audience to hear the whole quote. This is for our radio audience too, because they didn't see it during the break. This is Justice Stephen Breyer at Harvard Law School back in April talking at Harvard Law School about basically court backing.

Take a listen. The rule of law has weathered many threats, but it remains sturdy. 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 feed that matter perception. This is, Secretary Pompeo, 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're going to try and bum rush this thing, move as fast and as far as they can. Make no mistake about it, it's going to take each of us raising our voice, making the case for why this is anti-democratic. It strikes at the heart of our republic.

We can't let it happen. To quote a former Senator, it would be boneheaded to do this. It would, right?

Not present. It would. Look, it just, and this goes for the, the Republicans shouldn't do this either when we're in power. This isn't the kind of thing where one party should decide they have their moment. They're going to go drive a Republican to the ground and deny these checks and balances.

This is about principle. This is about our central understanding about who we are as Americans and what makes our country unique and we all have to, and the ACLJ has got to be a big part of this. Yeah. We've all got to work really hard over these coming days and weeks and it'll probably extend to months while the Biden administration tests, tests America to see if it's prepared to push back against these progressive efforts. Yeah, because they throw in there too, oh yeah, we'll have to do away with the filibuster of course, to get this done, which is like, that's no big deal. Uh, but you know, you also wrote about, we, we told you, we started this, uh, secretary Papel, which is that, you know, abortion always kind of taking center stage in these debates about the Supreme court and the title 10 rule change.

You've talked about that. You wrote about that on our website, uh, being published today by the Biden administration, rolling back basically the pro-life policies of the Trump administration. I mean, how far reaching is this move by Biden to do this?

So it's pretty broad, Jordan, and pretty deep and deeply immoral. The work that the state department did when I had the privilege to lead it under President Trump and the work that the administration did more broadly to protect every life from conception till natural death was real and important. My part was to make sure that foreign aid assistance that went around the world didn't end up underwriting so-called family planning, the guys, the rubric, the false word used to really describe abortion practices from NGOs that are underwriting other countries efforts at abortion. We were serious about it. We were thoughtful. We were determined. We made sure that no taxpayer money ever went to underwriting and abortion.

These are family destroying activities. And now the Biden administration is opening that back up and doing not only the Mexico city policy and all the work that we did to protect life, but now this change to title 10 will fundamentally undermine these, this most central right that every human being has. You know, Mike, you've got another piece. We've got a couple of pieces up by secretary Pompeo, so you're going to want to see this, uh, faith and foreign policy essential to our Republican fact. That's our lead article up right now. Give us a little bit of, of what you're, you were trying to get out there because very important issue of you've made it clear that faith in the public square is not only consistent with Americans Judeo Christian tradition, but necessary for our Republic to continue exceptionalism.

Jay Jordan, you all know American history. I saw our ambassador to the United nations yesterday, try to undermine that talking about what a failed formation the United States had. Nothing could be further from the truth. We literally, we were founded on the set of Judeo Christian principles that is a shining light to the world. And so for elected officials and each of us, we have to bring faith into the public square. We are, we're, we're a nation that has a first amendment. It says we're not going to have an established religion, but we're going 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 give that up when you move into the public space. And it was always important for me to make sure everyone knew I'm 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 strip that out, if we move that away, these issues are connected, right? The idea of packing the Supreme court so that you can change things like the height amendment, you can do all the things that, that run a foul of our Republican, our constitution.

These are things we can't permit. And it's why I'm so excited to be part of this organization that works so hard and files amicus briefs on title 10 issues and all the things that that truly matter and can change the way this administration is restricted. That new piece is just published these last couple hours called faith and foreign policy. This is very unique to have from a former secretary of state, a faith and foreign policy essential for our Republic by Mike Pompeo, a senior council for global affairs, the ACLJ.

You'll only find that at ACLJ.org. So check that out today as always a secretary Pompeo. Great to have you as part of the team. Thanks for joining us today. Thanks Jay.

So long. We want you to support the work of the American center for law and justice. We've got a matching challenge right now. It's how we can bring people like Pompeo onto the team and think about this piece that he wrote faith and foreign policy as a former secretary of state, writing about the role of faith and foreign policy, not just some, you know, someone in academia, but someone who has done the job as the nation's top diplomat, we've been able to assemble this team because of your tremendous financial support of the ACLJ, double the impact of your donation today. The entire month of April by donating online, being part of our matching challenge at ACLJ.org.

We'll be back second half hour coming up. At the American center for law and justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate. It will be matched.

A $10 gift becomes $20, a $50 gift becomes 100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, DC, Sekulow Live.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Some conflicting messaging coming out of Nancy Pelosi. So she said she does not agree yet with this legislation, which has been introduced by Jerry Nadler and Senator Markey and others this morning by the steps of the Supreme Court to add four new justices to the court. All four would be, all four new justices would be chosen by Joe Biden and then confirmed by I guess right now it is a barely controlled Democrat US Senate. The only way they acknowledge this to get this done would be to get away with, do away with the legislative filibuster.

So a lot there to unpack. But Nancy Pelosi, while saying she doesn't yet agree with it completely and she'd like to have some more time on this because Joe Biden's got a commission on this that he launched on Monday. She did say this morning that the US population, the size of the economy, quote, might necessitate expanding the size of the Supreme Court. This is, like we were talking about with Mike Pompeo, this is the great, this is how you do things. You start a commission and you put out test legislation and you see what the feedback is like. You know you're exactly right.

And you have to 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've taken 70 or 80 cases. When I first started, Andy, when we first started doing the Juice for Jesus case back in the mid 80s, I said 90s, mid 80s, 40 years ago almost, they were taking 115, 120 cases. Before that they were taking 150.

They've had years now where they've taken 75 or less. But this idea of controlling a branch of government, as Wes said, you know, the hostile takeover of a branch of government or the US government, is very dangerous. And they try to rely on history, but history just doesn't support them.

No, Jay, it does not. Alexander Hamilton was very careful in saying the weakest branch of government is the judiciary. And what he meant by that is, as 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 easiest cowed, the easiest 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 apolitical. It makes determinations of constitutionalities, of laws, among other things. And it's the branch that you've got to keep your hands off of, those of you who are politicians, and let it function as it has functioned from the beginning of the republic and since 1869 with nine justices, very, very well indeed. Harry, one of the things that I'm thinking about from a policy perspective, they're looking at this and saying, look, you get this through, you pick up four seats, the votes, right now they're worried about this six, three conservative majority.

All of a sudden you add all these, you know, you got seven, it's seven, six. Precisely. So they're doing the math. So the 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 Ocasio-Cortez currently positions the government. But they'll play to the left, Jordan, here. I mean, you and Than, I mean, Biden will play to the left.

Oh, absolutely. This is a move to play to the left. So I think that this idea that Nancy Pelosi came out and said, I don't support this yet makes sense because she wants to see how it all comes together, but there's no way this happened without her at least getting the green light. She didn't say, Jerry Nadler, chair of the judiciary committee. If you do this, I'm going to yank you as chair of the judiciary committee, which you could.

So this is to allow it. You allow the kind of conversation to begin. You put the radicals out first. Oh, wow. They're shocking. And they'll come back with something maybe a little less shocking. Maybe it's three. Maybe it's three justices and maybe it's trying to work across.

I don't know. They'll do something where it's not quite as extreme sounding, but you put out the radicals first. It's a, it's a normal political strategy. And will anyone care? Do the conservatives actually raise up and say, no, we're not going to allow this. That's our job. That's what we have to do. At the American center for law and justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts.

And in Congress, the 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 in a unique way for a limited time. You can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate.

It will be matched a $10 gift becomes $20 a $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you were saying when you stand with the American center for law and justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v Wade 40 years later, understand parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Someone wrote in as a joke on our YouTube page, but you know, I wouldn't put it past the, it's kind of where we live in now. So Tony wrote in, is this also going to be part of the quote infrastructure bill? Well, I mean, when there's social infrastructure and there's infrastructure has nothing to do with building anything or repairing anything, why wouldn't it be, Oh, we need this extra Supreme court justice so that we can force your States to comply with, for instance, the case we're involved in. They're probably worried about, Whoa, well, what if they, the Supreme court ultimately says that Ohio can lower their taxes and receive the stimulus money? Well, that wouldn't be the case if you added four justices right now from Joe Biden. Exactly right.

And that's why, look, that's why that brief that we filed in that case is so essential and we represent, I think almost 80 members of the United States Congress. But I think, you know, I want to go to West quickly and then take this call from Amy. Oh, they did call it infrastructure. They did? Yes.

Stan back. Yeah. So, so Congressman Jones said this was infrastructure. Congressman Mondaire Jones, uh, Jordan, who's one of the co-sponsors of this. When asked about this bill, he said the Supreme court is infrastructure.

Jordan, we need to take him at his word. They may try to slip it in a reconciliation bill for infrastructure. I mean, this is how would the parliamentarian allow that then? I mean, a change to the Supreme court over infrastructure, uh, reconciliation. I mean that, that would, I would think the parliamentarian would step up and say, that doesn't make sense, but who knows that with the way that they're defining infrastructure, Jordan, the parliamentarian shouldn't allow it.

It clearly runs a foul of the bird rule. It is not budgetary in nature. So I would think that it would get stricken, but I will tell you the ruling that the parliamentarian made a couple of weeks ago, allowing them to amend budget resolutions in order to get an additional crack at it.

Don't take anything for granted here, Jordan. That's what I would say. Part of it is budgetary cause it's economics. I mean, it's dollars that are going to be expended. Wes, your sense of where this goes, what do you think this is? Harry mentioned that they have three objectives. I think these gentlemen and leftists in Congress writ large also have three points of reference and that is our nation is defective. Our constitution is defective.

Is their view, right? And our, yeah, their view and our system of checks and balances is defective. They do not like checks and balances or they wouldn't 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 have learned their lesson when they eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments and they wouldn't be doing this, but they didn't learn. And they're trying just because of pure politics and instant gratification, they're willing to go ahead and change the Supreme court. They did not change on the judicial filibuster. So they're not, listen, they're not afraid to change filibuster rules, Andy, but I was thinking about this.

You know, if you look at it, we talked about it historically, but let's look at it right now. You're expanding four justices on the Supreme court on issues like religious Liberty or issues like, uh, Jordan mentioned that the, uh, the infrastructure bill where you can't lower taxes, a state is being told they cannot, I mean, this would have dramatic impact on everyday citizens lives. Well, it absolutely does because it changes the balance, uh, of judicial ideology. So radically in the Supreme court of the United States, I think at best we have a five, four division right now, maybe at best six, three, it depends. The point is they can't stand the fact that President 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, well, we'll just add three or four of our own, maybe five. Who knows what it ultimately will be, but it does affect every citizen. And my view is hands off the Supreme court. Yeah, I'll tell you this though, if you look at what they're late thinking right now, I mean, let's look at it politically for a second, here's what they're thinking. We the President Trump put in three justices of the Supreme court. So you've got this, you know, six, three, five, four majority right now, who are the likely replacements? I mean, you know, anything can happen, but the justice Breyer has given no indication that he's stepping down.

The other two are young. Yep. Sotomayor Kagan. So I think what's happening here is the Democrats are looking at this and saying Breyer probably not stepping down and even if he did, that's not going 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're on the losing side of many of the debates that motivate the polity. But it's important to note that progressives for progressives, our nation, 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 is saying when we're saying they're trying to pack the court. Here's what he says. Some people will say we're packing the court. We're not packing it.

We're unpacking it. Senator McConnell and the Republicans packed the court over the last couple of years as Senator Markey outlined. So this is a reaction to that. It's a necessary step in the evolution of the court. I didn't know the court evolved.

I mean, I thought that this wasn't the idea that the court was an institution that doesn't evolve. There was no court passed by Republicans. There were vacancies and Republicans filled them.

That's all. And they used the legislative power they already had. And the constitutional authority they had. They didn't have to do the filibuster. They didn't have to get rid of a filibuster. They didn't have to do anything special. No new legislation. That's because the dying justices remain.

The seats opened up and they filled them and they were in control. That's not packing the court. That's just following the Constitution.

That's not having to put forward new legislation or anything like that. Let me go to Amy in Colorado on line one because I think her call is very important because this is what it's all about. Amy, welcome to Secular. You're on the air.

Hi there. I was just wondering, besides calling elected officials and giving to your cause, what else can we do as normal citizens? Right off the bat, remember, there's only a six-vote margin right now in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate split. We have elections that will come up in a year or so, those midterm elections, in a year and a half. If one of those branches falls back to Republicans, you don't have to worry about this moving forward at all. That's one thing you can do election-wise is you choose your elected officials. It is very tight in the House, narrow as can be in the Senate 50-50. A lot of this can ultimately be stopped if we fight now to make sure it doesn't happen before those midterm elections, because this is the kind of thing you'd do, you'd be like burning your house down. If Joe Biden thinks he could actually get this done, get rid of the filibuster, Nancy Pelosi, I think they would lose the next election cycle. So they'd give up the Speaker of the House, they would give up the Senate to pack the court with four more.

Oh, sure they would. So this is what they're testing. Yeah. So, Than, you did a memo for us this morning showing that there's 218 to 212 is the current makeup of the United States House of Representatives. But there are a series of Democratic members that were elected by a margin of less than 5%. So, Than, my question is, because people are asking, what's the action item here? What are we going to do on Capitol Hill on this? We've got to engage every single member of the House and Senate, and we've already started it. By the way, more than 140,000 of our members have signed a petition opposing this plan already. We're taking it to both sides of the chamber. And this is why at the outset of the broadcast, Jay, you said that if Democrats keep the House together, they can get it through.

And that's absolutely true. But I think we can beat it, Jay. We only need to convince three Democrats that this is a bad idea and we can stop it in the House of Representatives. We're going to take it to them. And Jay, one other... Go ahead.

Go ahead. Well, one other thing I just wanted to say to Amy, she asked the right question because at its base, Jay, this is an effort to take the power away from the American people. This goes to what Jordan just said. You need two things under the constitution to fill a vacancy. You need a willing President and a willing Senate. The Democrats are mad about Merrick Garland, they didn't have a willing Senate.

They're mad about Amy Coney 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 President Trump's picks. This is an effort to steal the power from the American people at its base level. That's what it is. Yeah.

Now, Andy, 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 he pulled the cat out of the bag, as they say, because the New Deal plans that he were being stricken down by the Supreme Court prior to that, ultimately all were passed as constitutional by a court that he then began to fill as the vacancies began to come up. So in the natural course of events, the New Deal proposals were declared constitutional and he got what he ultimately wanted, but he didn't get the additional pack justices that he was out to get. He did get it in the process of political evolution. You know, so again, I think what we've got to do is you've got to be ready to battle this through the election to the next midterm election because here's what they can do.

They can either make it, I think it'd be very tough for them to do right now. Do not buy into the headlines that Nancy Pelosi's killed this by her statement. That is bogus. They're playing two sides here. They 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 that Nancy Pelosi is going to do your work for you here. Nancy Pelosi is just waiting for this enough to build up pressure wise to see should they try this before the midterm elections to try and encourage Democrat turnout or do they need to try and get a couple more seats in the U.S. Senate because of people like Joe Manchin and use this as an election issue.

I think that's the only calculation here. Are they trying to push it before the election or after? It's not if they're going to do it, it's when are they going to do it. The way to stop it is by standing up right now and standing up through the next election cycle. Support the work of the ACLJ, we'll be doing just that. Double the impact of your donation to our Magic Challenge at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be 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 to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice we're 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, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate it will be matched, a $10 gift becomes $20, a $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ, the work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. We're going to take four of your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110 if you want to talk to us on air. This final segment of the broadcast, Patricia calling from California, Patricia thanks for holding on, you're on the air. Thank you Jay for taking my call, I'm just going to step outside here a second.

I am an evangelical Christian and I support the things that you do and I appreciate you. I was wondering if the Democrats are successful in packing the court and eliminating the filibuster, wouldn't that be one more step towards socialism, which is what they want ultimately anyway? Well I think, listen, it's towards control. So if socialism in your definition is control and that more of their left-leaning policies get green-lighted by the court when they're challenged, then yes, this would be a way to ensure in the short term, decades speaking, because I mean you get four new justices on the Supreme Court, they're on there for decades, so it's not like it's short term like a couple years. So this would be a kind of a rubber stamp court in their view of their most challengeable legal legislation that they pass, policies they put forward, and they assume that by adding these four with those that are already there, that they're going to have a rubber stamp. But they also are saying in their commission, let's not forget about the commission Andy, the commission doesn't just say numbers of justices, the commission says the way cases are selected and there are procedures for how cases are heard. So it is a reshaping of the federal judiciary.

That is what they're looking at. You know Jordan, you said earlier, I'm surprised they haven't just gone through a massive judiciary reform bill, but which probably ultimately is going to come. But if you look at what they're saying in the commission, it goes much further than just Andy, a couple of justices. Oh it really does Jay, I mean it really does. It talks about such things as the advice and consent process which is embedded in our constitution.

It talks about that, that should scare you right off. It also talks about things like, as you said, the way justices select the cases. Now we have a rule of four, four justices can decide to pick a case to hear and that's what it is. Well now the Supreme Court, the commission set up by Biden is going to make a determination or is going to inquire into how the justices go about selecting the cases they're going to hear. What businesses is it of the executive branch of government to do that? My position is and our position is, it is not your business to inquire into how the justices select their cases nor how they vote nor what their ideology is.

The justices are selected by the President through the advice and consent of the Senate. That is the constitutional procedure and that's the one that should be left in place. Let me play what Andy McCarthy, our friend, constitutional lawyer said on Fox News. This is important.

I want to get Harry to comment on that. Take a listen. They think they can intimidate the Supreme Court into the way they choose which cases to decide and in the way they can, they decide the cases that are before them. Whether they unexpectedly give the left wins that you wouldn't figure they'd get or in cases where conservatives win, the decisions become so narrow that they're of little precedential use.

So there's a lot of mischief here. So while this legislation, Harry, talks about just, it's not just, I mean adding these new justices to the Supreme Court which to give them a majority, the fact of the matter is to move it to 13. The fact of the matter is the 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've lived in England. We had 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. And it would be naive to think, Wes, that this is just tinkering with a little thing. This is much bigger than that. Yeah, they are actually trying to fundamentally shape the federal government and things that have been in place for a long, long time and it's so disingenuous.

I think our listeners need to really realize this. They are saying that the Republicans practice court packing. All they did, a President used his constitutional powers to fill three vacancies on the Supreme Court. President Trump did not cause the vacancies. He did what he's supposed to do.

And a Senate elected by the American people confirmed them. That was not court packing. This is. No question about that. Let's go to Tom in Texas on line one.

Looks like it'd be probably the final call of the day. Hey, Tom, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm so tired of seeing the left wing liberals say one thing when it behooves them and another thing when it is against them. And it's a such a double standard. The American public is sitting here just walking up to the window, opening their mouths and taking the medicine because in my opinion, the liberal, excuse me, the media altogether is so biased. And they, they, you know, there's a certain proportion of the country that gets their news from TMZ, the view, um, you know, you're, you're, you're a hundred, look, this is, this is a well thought out plan though. I don't think anybody fan should think for a moment that this has not been well thought out.

Not not for a moment, Jay. And in fact, I think Nancy Pelosi and, uh, Dick Durbin and others coming out, I think that strategy, they want to appear reasoned so that whatever ends up as the final package can go through. Let me, let me say this quickly to the caller.

Yes, it can be hard to cut through the media narrative, but Jay, there were 19 Democrat members of the house of representatives elected by a margin of less than 5%. You only need three of them to defeat this legislation. That's where we need to focus.

But Andy really quick, they're doing a double play here. They're, they're looking at this as a commission and then they're looking into the legislation and then they're going to bring up the legislative filibuster. That's what they're going to do. Yeah.

Yeah. The ultimate goal here is to, 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, to our constitutional principles and to 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 of court packing and don't let Jerry Nadler tell you it's unpacking.

That's a bunch of garbage. It is an attempt to pack the court. It failed once. I hope it fails again.

But Jordan, you think this play is way beyond just court packing. It's it's the political plan. This is really for the congressional elections. Oh, absolutely.

Absolutely. This is a, this is a move that they're going to, I think that they don't have the votes right now even to do away the filibuster. They don't have the votes with Joe Manchin, the Senate, but they need something to rally around. They want to make it a race issue. They want to make it an infrastructure issue. So that's why with the commission, with this legislation, with the people who introduced the legislation, this is a year and a half long project to get to doing away with a filibuster and adding four seats to the US Supreme Court. So you've got the far left doing some of the bidding for it. And then you've got the Biden administration putting together the, the, the commission to do it. And they will try and do this as a way to get out the vote, which is much more difficult in midterms than it is Presidential election year.

So we've got to, we've got to keep our outrage on this very high. Marty's seeing way too many conservative media outlets saying, well, Nancy Pelosi said no to this. This is a, that's a scam move. That's to distract you and to say, oh, this isn't ever going to happen. She knows they don't have 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'd be doing it. They're telling us what they would do. Support the work of the ACLJ, donate online, ACLJ.org.

Talk to you tomorrow. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20, a $50 gift becomes 100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.