Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) admitted that her party is considering expanding the Supreme Court from nine judges because they do not like the last three judges appointed by former President Donald Trump.
“Well, first thing on the court, we haven’t increased the number of judges on the Supreme Court since Lincoln’s day, when it turned nine. So, there can be discussions about whether we should expand that. should,” Pelosi told students at the University of Cambridge on Monday. Adding, “The only thing is, when you talk about it, everybody says you are being political, you are doing this only because Because you don’t like the judges there. The second part of that is true but… it’s not about politics.”
The president said some things about the Supreme Court needed to be improved, criticizing the fact that people appointed to the Supreme Court in the country do not have to disclose their assets like elected officials in the US Congress, but they Take very important decisions which affect the public.
“Mount Olympus, … we don’t need to know anything about them, and they make decisions that affect our lives. In many ways, whether it’s climate — they’ll make important climate, environmental decisions — they make decisions regarding a woman’s right to choose, and make decisions concerning voting rights – you name any subject. We are at the mercy of this Court that is on Mount Olympus, to someone for life Not accountable,” Pelosi said.
The president said Democrats will make a decision about whether or not to extend the courtroom after a panel appointed by President Joe Biden releases its report on the legal implications of doing so because it is an issue of justice.
Texas Public Policy Foundation general counsel Robert Heineke told The Epoch Times that Biden’s “bipartisan group of experts” on the commission to study Supreme Court reforms is not impartial.
Heineke said, “In order to abstain from engaging on this terrible idea, but then to create a prejudicial commission that would agree with the progressive view, both set up a pretentious commission.”
Biden’s April executive order, “directs that the commission complete its report within 180 days of its first public meeting. This action is part of the administration’s commitment to closely study measures to reform the federal judiciary… “
Pelosi praised his party’s effort to ensure justice and fairness by the commission studying the consequences of the Supreme Court’s expansion.
“So, there are some things that are worthy of negotiation and to that end, President Biden set up a commission to study it. It’s not something that you just walk up to and say, I heard at a rally.” that we should pursue the court, so let’s just do that, but let’s study what the implications are and how do you do it in a way that isn’t interpreted as… a political decision, but a judgment of justice, Pelosi said. Adding, “So, that’s just an injustice… but I don’t think you’ll see any move to raise the Court until the President’s Commission submits its report.”
But Heineke said the Court’s extension is a “terrible idea” that would have long-term consequences.
“Adding more justices to the Supreme Court,” Heineke said, “would politicize the court and be subject to manipulation by the legislative branch, depending on who is in power.” Till then, to add more votes, you can see where it goes. This then leads Republicans, when it’s their turn, to add more justice until their side wins. And that is not what the role of the courts is; The courts should not be on one side or the other.”
Now-deceased Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg previously said she was opposed to packing up the court.
“I have heard that there are some people on the democratic side, who want to increase the number of judges. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court. Ginsberg said in a 2019 interview. “So, I’m not at all in favor of the solution that I see is a temporary situation.”
Pelosi said, “These three last judges who went to court didn’t have to reach the 60-vote threshold because Republicans changed the rules for confirming Supreme Court justices, because you only need a simple majority.” Is required.”
However, Heineke called the speaker’s remarks on the 60-vote limit “nakedly hypocritical,” as it originally intended to be approved by a simple majority in the Senate by former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“The rule change will create clout for all nominations except the Supreme Court—the limit of majority votes, yes or no. The Senate is a living thing, and it must change in order to survive, as it has throughout the history of this great nation. “For the average American, it’s common sense to get the Senate working again, adopting the rules,” Reid said in a speech on the Senate floor in 2013. It’s about getting Washington working, regardless of who’s in the White House, or who controls the Senate. “
Then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned that changing the Senate rule would trouble Democrats, later when the GOP is in a majority.
“And get this, they think they can change the rules of the Senate in a way that only benefits them. They want to do it in a way that gets President Obama’s agenda enacted, but a future Republican president is supreme. Using the same example Republicans could not get their choice for the Court confirmed by the Senate, our Democratic friends want to set,” McConnell said in a speech from the Senate floor in 2013.
Republicans used the simple majority rule to confirm three Supreme Court justices during the Trump administration.
In addition, progressives are calling for an end to the filibuster so that they can pass the Democrats’ legislative agenda by a simple majority of 50 votes, which Pelosi indicated would be good to change.
“We want them to do this for a woman’s right to choose, we want them to do it for the climate, we want them to do it for LGBTQ, I wish they did it for gun violence protection, list increases, voting rights, and the rest,” Pelosi said. “Three people will get lifetime jobs, who are relatively young, according to the court, to make decisions that affect us all while we don’t pass a bill. Can do which will not enable people to stand in line for 10. Voting hours. “
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times