Former Attorney General Eric Holder let it be known Monday that he will not run for president in 2020, saying he will fight against gerrymandered districts instead.
On Thursday, during a discussion with the Yale Law National Security Group, Holder gave the nation good reason not to vote for him if he did run.
The man tasked with covering former President Barack Obama’s backside from 2009 to 2015 said the next Democrat president should “seriously” look at adding seats to the United States Supreme Court if there is a Democratic majority in the Senate, the Daily Beast reported.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t specify the number of justices who should serve.
Citing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “power grabbing antics,” Holder is suggesting what would prove to be a convenient offset to President Donald Trump’s conservative appointments to the high court — and it’s not out of the question that Trump may have additional openings to fill during his tenure.
BREAKING: In response to Q at @yalelawsch how Dems should respond to GOP “going low”,@EricHolder said if he were President & had Dem majority in Congress, he would "seriously consider adding two seats to the Supreme Court to make up for @senatemajldr powergrabbing antics."
— Take Back the Court (@TakeBacktheCt) March 7, 2019
Holder, the man responsible for enforcing the law under Obama, essentially said that because the GOP was allegedly unfair in the process of approving Trump’s nominees, Democrats should make a sham of our system of government by openly stacking the Supreme Court.
And he is held up by the media as an exalted statesman.
Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for Holder, confirmed to The Daily Beast that he did embrace the idea of court-packing.
Rodenbush said: “In response to a question, Attorney General Holder said that given the unfairness, unprecedented obstruction, and disregard of historical precedent by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, when Democrats retake the majority they should consider expanding the Supreme Court to restore adherence to previously accepted norms for judicial nominations.”
It’s clear Democrats are still smarting over McConnell declining to consider Obama’s court pick, Judge Merrick Garland, in 2016.
According to the Daily Beast, “virtually all elected Democrats have either ignored the proposal or dismissed it out of hand.”
The only 2020 Democratic candidate who supports the idea is the obscure mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, who points to what he considers bad behavior to warrant more bad behavior.
“It’s no more a departure from norms than what the Republicans did to get the judiciary to the place it is today,” he said. “Bold, ambitious ideas need a hearing right now.”
With the youth of Trump’s appointments — Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch is 51, and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh is 54 — the progressive left make no bones about not wanting to wait decades to see a swing in their favor, as seen from Brian Fallon, executive director of the group Demand Justice.
Fallon told the Daily Beast:
“More and more Democrats are becoming convinced that we cannot resign ourselves to the third branch of government being captive to partisan Republican forces for the next 30 years. Any progressive reforms that a Democratic president would pursue in 2021 would come under threat from the Supreme Court. Accepting the status quo on this issue is not going to fly and there is becoming a consensus that some type of reform needs to happen.”
The ends justify the means for this crowd.
Here’s a quick sampling of responses from Twitter:
Of all the notorious examples of abuse of power and disregard for norms in the Democratic Party's history, of course they now want to bring back the one that failed most spectacularly the last time it was proposed. https://t.co/lZtRjYc2U3
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 7, 2019
Trump is breaking all our norms and we need to fight back against that by *checks notes*…..packing the supreme court!
— ry (@ry60026592) March 7, 2019
Let’s change the rules because we didn’t get it our way….awesome logic
— ?RJN? (@RJNieder) March 7, 2019
That was a bad idea for FDR and it’s a bad idea now
— Matt O’Donnell (@odmatt) March 8, 2019
oh yes so then the next Republican prez can add more too!!! what could go wrong!!!
— Danielle Butcher (@DaniSButcher) March 7, 2019
I’m a Democrat and I disagree with this. That only sets a precedent to be abused.
— Adam Bicksler (@bicks236) March 7, 2019
Not enough Dem votes? Let’s import illegals! Still not enough? Let’s lower the voting age to 16! Doesn’t quite achieve your plan of total world domination? More seats! Can’t wait to find out what’s next. ?
— Lyn Martinis (@Martini6Lyn) March 7, 2019
I can’t wait til we end up with 101 SCOTUS Justices.
It’ll make for a great film.
— Conseeervatroll (@Conseeervatroll) March 7, 2019
When FDR tried (and failed) to do this, he “eventually packed the Court the old-fashioned way, through attrition, naming nine members.” https://t.co/4derkMFgef
— Empoprises (@empoprises) March 7, 2019
- Dem Sen to SCOTUS if Roe v Wade is overturned: ‘If you want to see a revolution, go ahead’ - November 30, 2021
- NBA player proudly becomes US citizen, says ignorant critics of America should ‘keep their mouths shut’ - November 30, 2021
- REPUBLICAN governor does about-face, says he’s working with ’15 – 20’ states on QR code vax passports - November 30, 2021