If the Supreme Court doesn’t function as a political arm of the Democratic Party, leftist Democrats aren’t going to tolerate it remaining as it is.
That’s the takeaway from the liberal conniption after two 6-3 rulings on Thursday which ruled in favored of conservatives.
“Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting,'” Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion read.
In another, the Court struck down a California law which required nonprofits to disclose large donors to the state.
“Our cases have said that disclosure requirements can chill association [e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion for the case. “While assurances of confidentiality may reduce the burden of disclosure to the State, they do not eliminate it.”
To many Democrats, this didn’t mean the Arizona laws were constitutional or the California law wasn’t. Rather, it meant that it was high time that the Court was expanded so its justices started making correct decisions.
Take Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, one of the biggest proponents of court-packing in the upper chamber.
“Today’s ruling is another blow to voting rights,” Markey tweeted about the Arizona case on Thursday. “We have no time to waste to protect the right to vote. We must abolish the filibuster and pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act.”
“And we must expand the Supreme Court.”
Today’s ruling is another blow to voting rights. We have no time to waste to protect the right to vote. We must abolish the filibuster and pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
And we must expand the Supreme Court. https://t.co/PwLLAlfXcx
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) July 1, 2021
Markey was one of the co-sponsors of a Democratic bill to pack the court with 13 justices, introduced in April.
“We are here today because the United State Supreme Court is broken,” Markey said during a news conference at the time, according to the New York Post. “It is out of balance and it needs to be fixed.
“I’m disappointed to say that too many Americans question the court’s legitimacy. The consequence is the rights of all Americans but especially people of color, women and our immigrant communities are at risk.”
New York Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones was another sponsor of the bill; in a tweet Thursday, he also called for court-packing.
“Today, the Supreme Court once again gutted the Voting Rights Act,” he tweeted. “If we don’t expand the Court soon, we will no longer have a democracy to protect. What are we waiting for?”
The congressman also quote-tweeted Mother Jones’ Ari Berman, who wrote, “Never forget: If Mitch McConnell had not stolen 2 Supreme Court seats for Trump there would be 5-4 progressive majority protecting voting rights instead of 6-3 conservative majority gutting them.”
“And still some people have the nerve to question whether Court expansion is necessary,” Jones tweeted.
Today, the Supreme Court once again gutted the Voting Rights Act.
If we don’t expand the Court soon, we will no longer have a democracy to protect.
What are we waiting for?pic.twitter.com/mti1ZG6Enf
— Mondaire Jones (@MondaireJones) July 1, 2021
And still some people have the nerve to question whether Court expansion is necessary. https://t.co/rHoC4xS76U
— Mondaire Jones (@MondaireJones) July 1, 2021
And then there was Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, member of “the Squad,” who said “[t]oday’s SCOTUS decision is yet another attack on our voting rights.”
“Congress must act. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster. Pass the For The People Act. Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Expand the court. Save our democracy.”
Today’s SCOTUS decision is yet another attack on our voting rights.
Congress must act.
Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster.
Pass the For The People Act.
Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Expand the court.
Save our democracy. https://t.co/l14wWIbVKH
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) July 1, 2021
Save the cheerleader. Save the world. Get newer references.
While President Joe Biden didn’t call for court-packing, he was unusually critical of the Supreme Court for a sitting president in the wake of the Arizona decision.
“I am deeply disappointed in today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court that undercuts the Voting Rights Act,” Biden said in a statement, according to Fox News. “In a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure.”
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also called the Arizona decision part of an “unprecedented assault on voting rights” and lambasted the decision in the California case.
“The decision in Americans for Prosperity further harms our democracy by allowing the suffocation of the airwaves caused by big dark special interest money,” Pelosi said.
“This torrent of dark money silences the voices of voters and prevents passage of commonsense, bipartisan and popular legislation — from gun violence prevention to climate action to LGBTQ equality. It is fundamentally anti-democratic, and it cannot go unanswered.”
What’s the answer? You don’t need to think too much to figure it out.
Of course, legislation on court-packing would require both houses of Congress to pass it — and Democrats could lose one or both houses of Congress in the 2022 midterms, which is why this is an urgent priority for some on the left.
This is completely unsustainable over the long term, a game of mutually assured destruction which begins with moving the number of justices from nine to 13 and can conceivably end with Republicans adding the entire state of Wyoming to the court. Leftist Democrats, as always, don’t see that happening. As always, we’re just around the corner from realizing just how right they supposedly are.
Now, though, the Supreme Court isn’t acting as an unelected check on the GOP — and to Democrats like Markey, Jones and Pressley, that simply won’t do.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.