Online users
???: Message   

Turley vs. Democrat nonsense -- More:
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ģ

10/12/2020, 17:44:07

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Top lawyer: Dems go 'constitutionally unintelligible' over Barrett

WND Staff
4-4 minutes


Party is 'rationalizing a destructive act of retaliation'

WND Staff†By†WND Staff
Published October 12, 2020 at 3:14pm

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley is calling out Democrats who claim that the Republicans' effort to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg constitutes "court packing."

"That statement is constitutionally unintelligible," Turley wrote on Twitter as the Senate's confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett were about to begin.

He was referring to a statement Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., made to Fox News' Chris Wallace.

"Ginsburg herself said in 2016 that the Senate had to do its 'job' and vote on such nominations because 'there's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,'" Turley pointed out.

"What concerns me is that Democrats are rationalizing a destructive act of retaliation if they retake the White House and Senate. Ginsburg also denounced court packing as something that would decimate the court and its legitimacy."

The idea of "court packing" is commonly associated with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's legislative initiative to add seats to the Supreme Court so he could advance his New Deal agenda.

Will Democrats give Amy Coney Barrett a fair shake?

Turley pointed out the confirmation of Barrett would not increase the size of the court and it adheres to the Constitution.

"To say that fil[l]ing a vacancy on the Supreme Court is 'court packing' is like saying that a 'Hail Mary' pass at the end of a football game is 'intentional grounding.' The Constitution expressly allows for such for a nomination and confirmation," Turley wrote on Twitter.

Joe Biden's campaign spokeswomn Kate Bedingfield insisted in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper that the Republicans' nomination and effort to confirm Barrett is unconstitutional.

"This court is being packed now by the Republicans," she said.

"The vast majority of the people say that they want the person who wins the election on November 3rd to nominate the justice."

Tapper pushed back: "Thatís a poll! That's not the constitution!"

Bedingfield also omitted the fact that the voters already made their choice in 2016 by electing President Trump and a Republican majority.

See the interview with Bedingfield:

Turley, a nationally recognized expert on constitutional law and tort law, has written articles in legal journals for Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago and others.

He holds the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University and is the youngest chaired professor in the university's history.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page