Philip Hamburger on Court Packing

During the 2020 election campaign, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party floated the idea of "court packing"––adding Justices to the Supreme Court. The call for court reform was a response to Amy Coney Barrett's nomination following the death of Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg.

Fast forward to April 15, 2021. Congress has introduced legislation that would add four more Justices to the Supreme Court. President Biden, meanwhile, has formed a commission to reform the Supreme Court, either via packing or term limits. The historical situation has striking parallel's to the 1937 Roosevelt court-packing attempt, which ultimately failed but caused the court to submit to his New Deal agenda in the hope of "saving the court," regardless of whether they thought the New Deal was constitutional or not.

Today, we seem to be in the same situation. The executive branch has taken on the role of bullying the court into adopting Biden's agenda, whether or not that agenda is constitutional. Even if the court packing attempt fails, many Americans wonder whether the threat on the court alone is sufficient to corrupt the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.

I was joined by Phillip Hamburger. Phillip is the creator of the Columbia Law School's Center for Law and Liberty and is the founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. He has authored two recent books on the administrative state, Is Administrative Law Unlawful, and The Administrative Threat. Phillip has recently written a Wall-Street Journal article on the dangers of court packing to the American Republic and the separation of powers, entitled, "Court Packing is a Dangerous Game."

What does this court packing attempt mean for the American Republic? Phillip and I will sift through the frightening implications of the Democrat's plan.

TRANSCRIPT

image
image

Navigate Post-Censorship Social Media with Confidence

From Parler and Gab to MeWe and Bitchute, learn everything you need to know from my brief guide to the various sites where free speech still lives (allegedly), and how they stack up to the more mainstream competition like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

LINKS: