Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this jaw-dropping admission about the Supreme Court’s future

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the leader of the Court’s liberal block.

But Ginsburg just put her supporters in shock.

That’s because Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this jaw-dropping admission about the Supreme Court’s future.

Many Democrat candidates running for president have expressed support for the idea of packing the court with anywhere from two to six new liberal justices.

They are playing off their base’s rage over Mitch McConnell and the Republicans supposedly “stealing” a Supreme Court seat by blocking a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination after Antonin Scalia’s death, and then confirming Neil Gorsuch after Donald Trump’s victory.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes this is a terrible idea.

And she told NPR in an interview that the Supreme Court should stay at nine justices.

NPR reports:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview Tuesday that she does not favor proposals put forth by some Democratic presidential candidates who have advocated changing the number of Supreme Court justices if the Democrats win the presidency.

Ginsburg, who got herself in trouble criticizing candidate Donald Trump in 2016, this time was critical, not of any particular Democratic contender, but of their proposals to offset President Trump’s two conservative appointments to the court.

“Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” she said, adding, “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

Several Democratic candidates have indicated an openness, if they were to win the presidency, to adding to the number of justices on the Supreme Court to reduce the power of the current conservative majority. Some would also like to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices.

If Democrats go down the court packing road, it will start an endless cycle of each side adding justices every time they control the White House and the Senate.

But Democrats are so consumed with rage and hatred toward President Trump that they still may go down this disastrous path.

We will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story.

55 Comments

  1. I can not wait to see who the DimDems nominate for 2020. An apparent,
    pseudo-conservative Dem, who shows his/her true (lib) colors SHOULD he/she
    be elected or an HONEST true blue liberal without any subterfuge in his/her
    rhetoric? Hmmmmmmm?

  2. It’s a jacked up system! Instead both parties searching out intellects that can read, they search out ones that can be bought. Now that Trump has been elected we’ve all had a lesson. The lesson I’ve learned is that both sides never wanted an outsider coming into the party and busting up the massive wealth scam called politics. Trumps tariffs have made politicians mad not because of constituents that it may affect but the effect it has on their stock portfolio. Take for instance the current stock market. I looked at a report of 10 major companies and everyone had second quarter earnings that surpassed their expectations and ended up being profitable. Yet the narrative they want to sell is the sky is falling so as to create fluctuation in the market. Why? To affect the countries image of our President. To reduce share price temporarily so they can scoop up at a cheaper price, we lose they gain. They can do this out will with their left wing MSM. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is another outdated tool to help manipulate fortunes by a select few. Some say the 1% of the 1%. I say that’s a lie, I say 5-6 families in this country.

  3. Monkeying around with the Supreme Court is total folly. We have never had it so good in the United States. The rest of the world wants to get in and the Demo-rats are not happy with the state of the Union. May be they would be happy with our cities burning, bombed out and people starving. Count your blessing D-rats…your cheese is on the cracker!

  4. As usual, you’ve attempted to write a novel, filled with drivel. But, what more can we epey when the IQ is about NEGATIVE 1023 eh ?

  5. Credibly accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women? Would these be the women whom pretty much fell apart under pressure. You got nothing pal. More lies from the left.

  6. Short explanation… the Senate was merely asserting its prerogative by withholding consent regarding Merrick Garland’s nomination to SCOTUS, thereby fulfilling the Constitutional obligation for consideration of SCOTUS nominations. There is no timeline or any admonition to consider any nomination in a timely manner.

  7. Oh, yes, have you forgotten about the “nuclear option” orchestrated by Harry Reid, one of the most corrupt members of Congress in history? Republicans didn’t use it until after Reid started it; let’s get the facts straight.

  8. Nothing the Republicans have done can compare to the treatment given by the Democrats to Judge Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Bret Kavanaugh. The Democrats crucified all of them on the altar of shameless political pandering, telling lies and making accusations that could not be verified. Republicans have never done such dirty tricks to any nominee of a Democrat President. Democrats have no scruples, no integrity; all they want is POWER at any cost.

  9. Vasu:
    Merrick Garland was just another far left liberal disguising himself as a moderate who’d if confirmed, try to turn this country into another third world communist toilet.

  10. It seems majority of Jews in America are communist Jews. They seem to be very wealthy and have power. They are not the true Jews, like the little Jew, who usually suffers persecution. It’s difficult on some sites to talk about Jews in America being communistic, because a lot of times I get censored when I post it.

  11. Besides, it seems they murdered Scalia. After he died, no one was allowed to see him or there was no checking how he died. That seems strange, like they’re trying to hide something. I believe they murdered Scalia so they could put Garland, their puppet, on the SC.

  12. They murdered Antonia Scalia and expected to put Merrick Garland on the US Supreme Court. Well, he didn’t deserve to be put there because Scalia they murdered him. They are demonic scum.

  13. Yes but this idea was made by a Crat named Joe Biden just like the insanity to win everything on your agenda leads you to add more and more judges and that will take care of the problem. It reminds me of when I was a kid winning 3 out of 4 games and the person I was changing wanted to change the rules to 4 out of six. I live in a blue state and every time something doesn’t go their way the change the rules and laws to suit their agenda. It never ends.

  14. That old bat can’t keep it right . . .

    1St) It was W, Wilson who packed the Supreme Court Jesters . . .
    2Nd) I’m for term limits on the Jesters for no more than 8 years is way plenty . . . z

  15. GARLAND Was a Bolshevik…..Far Left Liberal. Like Ginsberg….Why”? They Are Both The same….. Far- Left-Liberal Jews. Are their Any Jews In Americas Congress that Are NOT Far Left Liberal progressive’…..? No’! Kagan,Liberal.Bryer Liberal. Jews.

  16. Trump provide a list of judicial possibilities before he was elected the first time. By the time that this is over, after his second term, Trump will have reshaped the judiciary. The most interesting recent result was the United States Supreme Court’s decision on June 20 to protect the Bladensburg Cross World War I Memorial. Mr. President, keep up the good work.

  17. Don’t forget what the liberals did to proposed Justice Bork. The word “borked” is now part of our vocabulary. And don’t forget about the alleged “pubic hair on the coke can” that they tried to use to prevent the confirmation of conservative Clarence Thomas. What was done to Garland was deserved payback – not to Garland but to the liberal left. The word “garlanded” does not even exist. The appointment of judges and justices is political, and things like this happen. Good people who would make exce3llent judges are sometimes rejected for bad reasons. Life is not fair and s**t happens The final results are normally o.k., as in Supreme Court appointments

  18. Conservative justices follow existing law and the Constitution, or sometimes try to correct overreaching by liberal justices. Liberal justices do not care about following the law or the Constitution – they make decisions based on their own view of what policy should be. Naturally the democrats want to pack the Court with their followers. It was a terrible idea when Roosevelt proposed it, and it is a terrible idea now. Even ultra-liberal Justice Ginsburg agrees.

  19. Nice try, but the bottom line of your little history lesson shows that you are just another Leftist Democrat who will say or do anything to America for not having Mrs. Clinton in office so that her dynasty could continue to shape this country into whatever would serve her desire along with those who would pay enough to ride her coattails.

  20. For the most part the congressmen that want to put term limits on the judicial branch are the very same ones that don’t want term limits on congress. they don’t see past their collective faces. The more important issue is that congress to be at the two term limit and judges not so much. It takes time to learn the Constitution the way the judges need understand it. The congressmen don’t know the carefully crafted document the way the judges do and they prove daily.

  21. I don’t know if the fractured Democratic party can remain intact… The Democrats may split as the more moderate Democrats aren’t in alignment with the radical progressive movement. Interesting…..

  22. You are crazy. It is the republicans who finally after many years of letting the democrats walk on them that they played hardball and win. Thank God Democrat’s are not interested in following the constitution they only want to advance their ideology which will ruin this country. We need to vote all democrats out of our government and at some point it may be best to go to a shooting war and getting rid of a bunch of them like that. We will see soon which way we should go.

  23. I expect the Supreme Court justices to follow the US Constitution when rendering a decision and put all personal feelings aside…

  24. I wont be reading anymore from this site. You have wrote in here that mcconnell rammed Kavennaugh down our throats.after being credibly charged with sexual assault. What a bunch of crap! You forgot to mention tho he was credibly charged meaning it was done correctly his accusers have mostly all been shown to be liars. Also he wasnt rammed anywhere. He was put thru a disgraceful so called hearing by unhinged democrats and shady witnesses. I dont care if ford was supposedly a “doctor” she came off as a liar and emotionally unstable. Of course her connections with fbi cia and top ranking dc elites kinfa makes me suspicious anyway. And finally after this fiasco called a hearing he was confirmed!! I wish he had sued the crap out of all the lawyers and false accusers!

  25. No credibility was found against Gorsuch.. except for no proof accusations.
    Reid started the mess, due to Reid’s belief, ‘So, what, we won didn’t we…’ attitude.
    Obama’s third nominee that wasn’t heard was never going to get past the Senate approval as he was Obama’s third nomination with low qualifications and third with very Liberal opinions and during the coming election year. In other words, Dems make a big deal out of what was just politics, not a appointment denied.. he never would have been approved by the Senate.
    McConnell cut through the process of political theatrics and THAT… is what bothers the Dems.. they didn’t get to POLITIC about being denied a third liberal S.C.
    AND there is no ‘pack’ as used in the terms Dem use… increasing the Judge counts- packing. Replacing Judges when positions are open is NOT PACKING… it is doing the business of congress.
    It is you being partisan by your messaging, as if approving Judges, when done by a Republican administration, is somehow wrong in its very basis.
    There are 130>< Class 3 Judge openings and those will get filled also.. the business of Congress won't stop because Dems don't like who is conducting the business.
    When Obama was doing the very same thing.. and possibly more than the Trump administration might attain.. there wasn't a thing Dems found wrong with it…
    Hypocrisy in motion.

  26. TOTAL BS by a DEM who thinks the longer the comment the better the content, but in reality just BS as usual!

  27. The Democratic Party has FULLY EMBRACED THE COMMUNIST AGENDA. They are no longer Americans and should be rooted out and deported or jailed as terrorists.

  28. Vasa Murti,

    Your analysis of the Supreme Court issue and your interpretation of Article II of The Constitution of the United States reflects the actions of every Democratic leader in Congress: to disregard the facts and translate everything in a manner that matches your/their idea as to what should be. Under Article II, the President shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, not the obligation. Under Article II, the President must advice the Senate of his intentions and the Senate is tasked with approving or disapproving anyone nominated by the President; nowhere does Article II make mention of a time frame.

  29. Good for Mitch. Odumbass picking justices would be like having bill Clinton running a girl’s school

  30. Oh, surprised when your own tactics are used against you? I’ve had to listen to your liberal BS for 30 years! I think it’s ABOUT TIME the court represents the ACTUAL WILL of the people. Be prepared for MORE disappointments!

  31. No one cares about your books. You are an ignorant lib who has no concept of what you are even talking about. Why are you on a Christian conservative site???? You have no clue what either one is.

  32. Federal judges cannot be retired involuntarily, they can only be forcibly removed by the impeachment process, same as for the president.

  33. Merrick Garland. No one will forget the day that Mitch McConnell told President Obama that he would refuse to allow him to fill that Supreme Court seat. Mitch McConnell gleefully calls it one of the “proudest moments” of his 34 years in the Senate.

    Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.” Therefore, President Obama had an obligation to put forward a nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and the Senate had an obligation to quickly consider that nominee.

    Chief Judge Garland was a nominee with impeccable qualifications. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Judge Garland served since 1997 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and famed Judge Henry Friendly before serving as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. During his time at the Department of Justice, Garland led the investigation and prosecution following the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, which claimed the lives of 168 people. Chief Judge Garland has the disposition and the credentials to serve on the Court, and that he deserves a full review and hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

    Fourteen Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed in presidential election years, before the 2016 presidential election took place. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 during the final year of President Ronald Reagan’s term. Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed in October 1991, after the presidential election campaign had begun that year. In both instances, the Senate had a majority of Democratic members, but still moved to confirm them to the high court. In fact, not since the Civil War, in 1862, has the Senate taken longer than a year to confirm a replacement for a Supreme Court vacancy.

    In addition, an eight-member court creates the potential for deadlock in important cases, which will create uncertainty in the law. In 2004, Justice Scalia wrote about the dangers of an eight-member Court. He stated that in cases of a tie vote, the Court “will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.” That means the law and constitutional protections could differ in different parts of the country, denying the full system of justice guaranteed by our Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court was already deadlocked in two cases since Justice Scalia passed away.

    They refused to meet with him nor give him a simple up or down vote!

    Prominent Republicans spoke favorably of Merrick Garland, a moderate. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, “Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man.” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “I have nothing against the nominee. Mr. Garland seems to be well qualified and would probably make a good judge.” Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) similarly said, “I would feel comfortable supporting him.” And Rep. David Jolly (R-Florida) said Republicans should act on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016. “I do think he should have a hearing and I would like to see a vote,” Jolly said. The Florida lawmaker also said if he were in the Senate, he would meet with Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland. “Of course,” he said.

    Jolly didn’t say he’d vote for Garland. He said he’d vote against him, and cited concerns with his judicial record on the Second Amendment and labor unions. Nonetheless, he said the Senate’s job is to give nominees hearings and votes, and they should be doing it with Garland’s nomination. “That’s actually the proper exercise of the Senate’s Article I authority,” he said.

    It might not sound like a bold statement, but Jolly’s comments came as several GOP senators refused to even sit down with Obama’s nominee. That’s because Republican leaders settled on a strategy of denying Garland any attention and punting the Supreme Court nomination until 2017, when Obama would be gone. Their hope was that a Republican would be in the White House by then and select a nominee more to their liking.

    Once Trump took office, Mitch McConnell began confirming his nominees like they were “on a conveyer belt.” When Neil Gorsuch was nominated instead of Merrick Garland, McConnell used the “nuclear option” to do away with the filibuster and ram him onto the court. And even after Brett Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault by multiple women, McConnell rammed him onto the Supreme Court as well, where he will now sit for decades to come.

    This latest move by Mitch McConnell to allow Republicans to push through more of Trump’s nominees is all part of Mitch McConnell’s strategy. When Democrats are in power, he does everything he can to block and obstruct. And when Republicans are in power, Mitch McConnell changes the rules back (and then some!) to pack the courts with right-wing justices for an entire generation.

    Mitch McConnell is willing to erode the very fabric of our democracy to get his way, and when future generations write the history of who broke Washington, it will be Mitch McConnell’s name staring up at them from the pages of their history books.

    In 2020, Mitch McConnell is up for reelection, and he’s already confirmed that he’s running for another Six year term. But America can’t afford another Six minutes of McConnell in the Senate, let alone another Six years.

    It’s the Republicans playing hardball and playing partisan games, not the Democrats!

  34. I’m not too worried about it yet. At the rate the Democrats are going, driving their own voters away with their schizophrenic ideas, even if the party survives Trump’s second term, it will be quite some time before they are put in charge of anything again.

  35. In April, Mitch McConnell forced a historic vote using the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules and allow himself and Trump to continue to pack the courts with more right-wing justices.

    Mitch McConnell bragged just a few weeks before that the “Republican Senate majority is confirming President Trump’s judicial nominees at a record-setting pace.” But since April’s vote, Mitch McConnell has now been able to confirm them even faster by limiting debate to just two hours per nominee. And he’s wasted no time putting that new power to good use.

    This latest rule change is yet another way Mitch McConnell has been willing to break the Senate in order to pack the courts with right-wing judges…

    After President Obama took office, Mitch McConnell did everything he could to slow down the process of confirming Obama’s nominees, so that by the time Obama’s first year was over, there were over a hundred vacancies on the federal courts.

    In 2013, Mitch McConnell refused to confirm any judge Obama nominated to the DC Circuit Court – one of the most powerful and influential courts in the country. And in 2015, when Republicans took control of the Senate and Mitch McConnell became majority leader, he changed the rules so that judicial confirmations came to a screeching halt. Only 25% of President Obama’s nominees were confirmed after that – the lowest number since Harry Truman was in office.

    And then, Merrick Garland…

    Merrick Garland. No one will forget the day that Mitch McConnell told President Obama that he would refuse to allow him to fill that Supreme Court seat. Mitch McConnell gleefully calls it one of the “proudest moments” of his 34 years in the Senate.

    Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.” Therefore, President Obama had an obligation to put forward a nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and the Senate had an obligation to quickly consider that nominee.

    Chief Judge Garland was a nominee with impeccable qualifications. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Judge Garland served since 1997 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and famed Judge Henry Friendly before serving as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. During his time at the Department of Justice, Garland led the investigation and prosecution following the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, which claimed the lives of 168 people. Chief Judge Garland has the disposition and the credentials to serve on the Court, and that he deserves a full review and hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

    Fourteen Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed in presidential election years, before the 2016 presidential election took place. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 during the final year of President Ronald Reagan’s term. Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed in October 1991, after the presidential election campaign had begun that year. In both instances, the Senate had a majority of Democratic members, but still moved to confirm them to the high court. In fact, not since the Civil War, in 1862, has the Senate taken longer than a year to confirm a replacement for a Supreme Court vacancy.

    In addition, an eight-member court creates the potential for deadlock in important cases, which will create uncertainty in the law. In 2004, Justice Scalia wrote about the dangers of an eight-member Court. He stated that in cases of a tie vote, the Court “will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.” That means the law and constitutional protections could differ in different parts of the country, denying the full system of justice guaranteed by our Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court was already deadlocked in two cases since Justice Scalia passed away.

    They refused to meet with him nor give him a simple up or down vote!

    Prominent Republicans spoke favorably of Merrick Garland, a moderate. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, “Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man.” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “I have nothing against the nominee. Mr. Garland seems to be well qualified and would probably make a good judge.” Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) similarly said, “I would feel comfortable supporting him.” And Rep. David Jolly (R-Florida) said Republicans should act on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016. “I do think he should have a hearing and I would like to see a vote,” Jolly said. The Florida lawmaker also said if he were in the Senate, he would meet with Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland. “Of course,” he said.

    Jolly didn’t say he’d vote for Garland. He said he’d vote against him, and cited concerns with his judicial record on the Second Amendment and labor unions. Nonetheless, he said the Senate’s job is to give nominees hearings and votes, and they should be doing it with Garland’s nomination. “That’s actually the proper exercise of the Senate’s Article I authority,” he said.

    It might not sound like a bold statement, but Jolly’s comments came as several GOP senators refused to even sit down with Obama’s nominee. That’s because Republican leaders settled on a strategy of denying Garland any attention and punting the Supreme Court nomination until 2017, when Obama would be gone. Their hope was that a Republican would be in the White House by then and select a nominee more to their liking.

    Once Trump took office, Mitch McConnell began confirming his nominees like they were “on a conveyer belt.” When Neil Gorsuch was nominated instead of Merrick Garland, McConnell used the “nuclear option” to do away with the filibuster and ram him onto the court. And even after Brett Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault by multiple women, McConnell rammed him onto the Supreme Court as well, where he will now sit for decades to come.

    This latest move by Mitch McConnell to allow Republicans to push through more of Trump’s nominees is all part of Mitch McConnell’s strategy. When Democrats are in power, he does everything he can to block and obstruct. And when Republicans are in power, Mitch McConnell changes the rules back (and then some!) to pack the courts with right-wing justices for an entire generation.

    Mitch McConnell is willing to erode the very fabric of our democracy to get his way, and when future generations write the history of who broke Washington, it will be Mitch McConnell’s name staring up at them from the pages of their history books.

    In 2020, Mitch McConnell is up for reelection, and he’s already confirmed that he’s running for another Six year term. But America can’t afford another Six minutes of McConnell in the Senate, let alone another Six years.

    It’s the Republicans playing hardball and playing partisan games, not the Democrats!

  36. When Trump wins again he should proffer a list of conservatives judges he wishes to add to the court and watch the apoplexy!

  37. The Supreme Court Justices should be non-political. They should only be concerned with interpreting the laws as they honestly see them. Politicians have bastardized the SCOTUS and leveraged power over the Justices in the SCOTUS by appointments.

  38. A better idea would be to reduce from 9 to 7 or even 5, retiring those who have been on it the longest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*