by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
In the Boston Globe, Elizabeth Warren writes that she now supports destroying the Supreme Court:
“To restore balance and integrity to a broken institution, Congress must expand the Supreme Court by four or more seats.” …
… Why “four or more”? Because Elizabeth Warren likes three of the current justices and dislikes six of the current justices (one of whom has been there for more than thirty years; two of whom have been there for more than 15 years), and because adding four or more new justices would ensure that the people she likes would have a majority.
That’s it. That’s the case.
Warren’s apologists will explain that this is just a “messaging bill.” And they’ll be right. It is a messaging bill. And Warren’s message is that she’s a tyrant.
When this idea was last mooted — by FDR in 1937 — a Congress filled with supermajorities from the president’s own party chose emphatically to reject it. The Chair of the House Rules Committee described the plan as “the most terrible threat to constitutional government that has arisen in the entire history of the country,” while Joseph O’Mahoney, who never met a plank of the New Deal that he disliked, told a friend that it “smells of Machiavelli and Machiavelli stinks.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, proposed that the idea “violates every sacred tradition of American democracy” and “all precedents in the history of our government,” and runs “in direct violation of the spirit of the American Constitution.” …
… In conclusion, the Senate insisted that the measure “should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” By presenting its parallel, Senator Warren is telling us something about herself. We should listen.