The Daily Signal - Legal Expert Explains Real Reason These Democrats Want to Expand Supreme Court

Episode Date: April 23, 2021

Four Democratic members of Congress have introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13.  Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., on April 15 introduced the bill with Reps. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y. Markey supports the high court's expansion because, he said, the “United States Supreme Court is broken.” GianCarlo Canaparo, a legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation and co-host of the podcast SCOTUS 101, said that Markey and the other Democrats backing the bill are seeking to expand the court in order to advance a far-left agenda. Opponents of the move have dubbed it "court packing." Canaparo joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain the likelihood of the Supreme Court being expanded and whether or not the Constitution even allows for adding justices to the bench. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) We also cover these stories:  President Joe Biden announces a new, significantly higher U.S. goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On a party-line vote, House Democrats pass legislation to make the District of Columbia the nation’s 51st state. Basketball star LeBron James deletes a controversial tweet after a Columbus, Ohio, police officer fatally shot 16-year-old Ma'Khia Bryant.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk, business. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, April 23rd. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Doug Blair. Democrats have introduced a new bill to expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13. John Carlo Canaparo, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow, joins the show to explain why Democrats are seeking to expand the High Court and whether or not the Constitution allows for the court to be expanded. And don't forget, if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a, five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Now, on to our top news.

President Joe Biden announced on Thursday that the U.S. has a new emissions reduction goal. The president wants to see greenhouse gas pollution drop by 50 to 52 percent by the year 2030. This 50 to 52 percent decrease is compared to emissions levels in 2005. In 2019, U.S. emissions were down by 19 percent when compared. with 2005. Biden made the announcement at the virtual leaders summit on climate. According to a White House fact sheet, the action is part of Biden's commitment to focus on building back better in a way that will create millions of good-paying union jobs, ensure economic competitiveness, advance environmental justice, and improve the health and security of communities across America.

The plan promises to create millions of American jobs. Some of these, These new or expanded job opportunities will include line workers who all lay thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, resilient grid, auto workers building modern, efficient, clean, electric vehicles, and the charging infrastructure to support them, and farmers using cutting-edge tools to make American soil the next frontier of carbon innovation. After a party-line vote, House Democrats passed legislation to make the District of Columbia the nation's 51st state. While the bill narrowly passed in the House, it is not expected to pass the Senate, as it would likely fail to garner the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Heritage Legal Fellow, Zach Smith, testified before Congress on the topic and argued that making D.C. a state through legislation is unconstitutional. Here's Smith, testifying to Congress on March 22nd via C-SPAN. Does Congress have the power to transform our nation's capital into our nation's 51st state by simple legislation?

For historical, practical, and most importantly, constitutional reasons, the answer is resoundingly no. Currently, D.C. is represented in Congress by Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat. LeBron James has deleted a controversial tweet he posted after a call. Columbus Ohio police officer shot and killed 16-year-old Mackiah Bryant. James, now deleted tweet, read, Your Next, hashtag accountability. The tweet received criticism, including from Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, who wrote on Twitter, LeBron James is inciting violence against an Ohio police officer. This is disgraceful and dangerous. Is the NBA okay with this? Is Twitter? The NBA, Los Angeles, Laguerre Star removed the post and explained his reason for doing so in another tweet, writing,

I'm so tired of seeing black people killed by police. I took the tweet down because it is being used to create more hate. This isn't about one officer. It's about the entire system, and they always use our words to create more racism. I am so desperate for more accountability. Footage from the officer's body camera appears to reveal that 16-year-old Bryant had a knife and was preparing to stab another individual when the police officer shot her. Now stay tuned for my conversation with John Carlo Canaparo, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow as we discuss Democrats' effort to expand the Supreme Court. Conservative women. Conservative feminist. It's true, we do exist. I'm Virginia Allen and every Thursday morning on problematic women, Lauren Evans and I,

sort through the news to bring you stories and interviews that are a particular interest to conservative leaning or problematic women. That is women whose views and opinions are often excluded or mocked by those on the so-called feminist left. We talk about everything from pop culture to policy and politics. Search for problematic women wherever you get your podcast. I am joined by John Carlo Canaparo, a legal fellow in the Me Center for Legal, and judicial studies at the Heritage Foundation and co-host of the outstanding podcast, SCOTUS 101. John Carlo, welcome to the show. Thank you, Virginia, and thank you for that very kind compliment.

Yeah, of course. If you're not subscribed, Skodas 101, check it out. Well, let's go ahead and jump right in. Last week, four Democrats introduced a bill to expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 justices. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Jerry Nadler of New York are really leading this charge on the bill. But representatives Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondair Jones of New York are co-sponsoring the bill. So let's begin with the arguments from the left. Why do these Democratic lawmakers argue that the Supreme Court needs to be expanded and specifically expanded right now?

You know, it's actually an interesting question because it assumes that there's a connection between Democrats' stated concerns about the Supreme Court and their solution. There's not. And that makes the question sort of difficult to answer. Let me show you why by explaining first what Democrats are saying is the problem with the Supreme Court. So Senator Markey has said the court is, quote, broken. And he has claimed that most Americans view the Supreme Court as a partisan political institution. Rep Nadler has said that the court needs, quote, unquote, balance after Republicans, what he calls norm-breaking actions leading to its current composition. What you won't find among these statements is any explanation of why the court is broken, and you won't find anyone actually defending the talking point that Americans

view the court as broken because that is actually belied by polling after polling after polling. Americans overwhelmingly have the most confidence in the Supreme Court of any of our government branches, and it's not even close. So their argument is based on a faulty premise, right? It's not clear why court packing would even fix whatever their problem is. So it begs the question, what's really going on? Thankfully, there are a few Democrats who aren't sticking so close to their blurry talking points, and they've shined some light on the real issue. Here's a quote, for instance, by Democratic rep Hank Johnson. Quote, it's time we start thinking about the Supreme Court like we think about the rest of the government and consider whether and how its current

composition allows it to effectively do what we need it to do. Two things stand out to me there. If Senator Markey is right that Americans view the court as political, then Rep Johnson is wrong that we should think about the court like we do the rest of the government, political. And when Johnson says that the court should do what we need it to do, what does he mean other than deliver progressive political policies? And that's what this boils down to. Democrats fundamentally fear a court that will not be a rubber stamp to. a left-wing agenda. A court that holds the Democrats' agenda up to constitutional scrutiny is not a court they want. Wow. Okay. So thank you so much for that breakdown. That's really, really helpful.

Because I think that that has been the question is wait a second. It certainly doesn't seem like the Supreme Court is broken. So why all of a sudden are we hearing this talking point that it is? It was really powerful on the day that Senator Markey of Massachusetts introduced the bill with the other lawmakers, there was a post that were circulating all over Twitter that was two pictures. On one side, you saw Senator Markey. This was from several years ago, and he was delivering remarks behind a podium with a sign attached to the podium that read hashtag, we need nine. In other words, we need nine Supreme Court justices. Now, the other picture was also Senator Markey, just last week, now standing behind a podium with the sign

attached that read expand the court to very contrasting images of the same individual. Why do you think Senator Markey and the other Democrats have changed their views on this issue and changed them pretty quickly? Yeah, you don't have to look hard to find hundreds of comments like that from almost any Democrat who's been in office for more than a couple of decades. And that's just further evidence that this is pure partisan politics that motivates this change. There is no principle here except the principle of power. So the bill has been introduced, but it hasn't been voted on yet in either the House or the Senate. What would need to happen for this bill to get a vote on the House floor? Very simply for Nancy Pelosi to advance it. Okay. And we know from what Pelosi

has said that, you know, expanding the court is not off the table. She has also definitely not promise that she will bring a vote on this bill. So I guess we'll wait and see what happens there. How likely do you think it is that Congress will call for a vote on this? In the short term, not likely. But talk to me again after Biden's court packing commission concludes its 180 day long consideration of the issue. If members of the committee, and I say members rather than the committee as a whole, because the committee is bizarrely not empowered to issue a recommendation. But if members of the committee back court packing or Biden decides to back court packing, Pelosi will change her position in a heartbeat and the bill will get a vote.

So you mentioned that commission that President Joe Biden has established. What exactly is the purpose that Biden has given for creating this commission to look at the Supreme Court? Well, the commission's stated purpose is to consider various reforms to the Supreme Court. composition, including adding justices. There are several reasons, however, to doubt that that is the commission's true purpose. And to see why, I think it's helpful to compare this commission to the last commission to examine the court, which was in 1975. That commission had 10 members who were all nonpartisan experts from within the Justice Department. This commission, by contrast, has 36 members, almost entirely academics, a supermajority of whom are progressives, and many of those have

already publicly taken positions in favor of changing the court. Second, this commission, unlike the first, has virtually no time to actually study the court. It has 180 days to issue a report from its first meeting. Now, to put that in perspective, to show you how little time they actually have, if a 36-member commission was going to hold a hearing and interview witnesses, if each member got five minutes for an opening statement and five minutes to ask one-witness questions, that's six hours, not allowing for any breaks. So if this commission was actually going to study anything, it would take ages. Finally, this commission has not been empowered to issue any recommendations, which the first, of course, was. So what is it doing, really? It's not studying the court. It's not

identifying any real problems. And it doesn't have the time to identify any solutions to these fictional problems. So the truth is that it's probably serving a stealth partisan purpose to remind the that the political party in power will, A, continue to publicly tarnish its reputation and, B, try to change it if it doesn't deliver the political outcomes that the party wants. Constitutionally, is there anything that says there can only be X number of justices on the Supreme Court? No, the Constitution doesn't set a number, but we've had nine since 1869. given that history, the question shouldn't be, you know, why not 13, which is how Democrats would probably frame it, but why not nine? Why would you change it? The only answer that question

that Democrats can give is because more than nine will let the Democratic president appoint political loyalists. Now, that's not an acceptable answer if you value an independent judiciary. And in fact, it would accomplish exactly what Senator Markey says he's trying to avoid, which is turning the administration of justice into a game of politics. There are simply no other reasons to expand the court. Workload is not one. The court only hears 76 cases a year, which is less than 50% of what it heard 30 years ago. Regardless, every justice hears every case, so adding justices doesn't spread the workload around. Nor is it any reason to add justices that we have more circuit courts today than in the past. We used to have one justice for each circuit because the justices had to

sit on the circuit courts also. They no longer do that. And that, you know, there are simply no other reasons to add justices to the court except to gain a political advantage. So if the founding fathers were alive today and they were watching this scenario unfold, what do you think they would say? I mean, quite simply put, they'd be terrified. Alexander Hamilton and several others drilled this point home, an independent judiciary is essential to a government that protects liberty. And a liberty protecting government that, you know, governs according to the will of the majority, but protects the rights of the minority, cannot exist without an independent judiciary. Packing the court for political purposes is the end of judicial independence, pure and simple. Wow. So then, I mean,

how can, how concerns should we be? Because obviously, you know, the Democratic, you know, the Democrats control the House and the Senate. So if this bill does come on the floor for a vote, I mean, what do you think the likelihood is that we're going to see this push through? And before we know it, there'll be 13 justices on the Supreme Court. You know, we should be concerned, right? It's no, it's no saving grace that there are a few Democrats in the Senate right now who oppose this. You know, political will is as fickle as the summer wind. What isn't, though, is an individual dependent judiciary that stands against what the founders feared was a tyranny of the majority. You know, the right political wind could shift and this could get a vote. And as unlikely as it

might seem now, you can't discount the possibility. And so you can't ignore the potential danger that this causes. Well, Jean-Carlo, before we let you go, I do want to ask you about your podcast, SCOTUS 101. It's a great show, but for those who might not be familiar with it, Can you tell us a little bit about it? Yeah, sure. We cover just about everything about the Supreme Court, what the court's doing, what opinions it has released recently. We break it down in a way that's accessible to non-lawyers.

And we also have guests on all the time, a lot of federal judges and Supreme Court advocates to sort of give you the inside baseball about how the court works and how the lower courts, how they go about doing what they do. That's great. and you can find that podcast wherever podcasts can be found, correct? That's right. Apple Podcastsheritage.org, you name it. Awesome. Well, John Carlo, we really appreciate your time today.

It's my pleasure. Thanks for having me. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal Podcast. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeartRadio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be back with you all on Monday. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation.

It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Rachel Del Judas, sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.