Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., bashed progressives’ court-packing proposal Saturday and accused Democrats of deploying a “good cop, unhealthy cop” technique to in the end put 4 new liberal justices on the Supreme Court docket.
Chatting with Fox Information Stay, Blackburn mentioned the brand new proposal by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and different progressives to broaden the variety of justices from 9 to 13 isn’t essentially at odds with President Biden’s 36-member fee to review Supreme Court docket reforms.
“I believe what they’re doing is making an attempt to play slightly little bit of unhealthy cop, good cop,” Blackburn instructed Fox Information on Saturday. “And we have seen them do that with different insurance policies. Take, as an illustration, the Inexperienced New Deal.”
Whereas average Democrats did not publically embrace Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez‘s signature local weather change proposal, Blackburn argued the Inexperienced New Deal insurance policies at the moment are tucked within Biden’s infrastructure invoice and repackaged an effort to rebuild America’s roads, bridges and extra.
“They’re doing the identical factor with court-packing,” Blackburn mentioned of Democrats’ political technique.
“What they’re doing is political comfort,” Blackburn added. “They know that the progressives need to see the courtroom packed. They need to fill it with liberal justices in order that they principally have an excellent legislative majority.”
Markey together with Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., and Hank Johnson, D-Ga., introduced their court-packing laws on Thursday generally known as the Judiciary Act of 2021.
It is simply a two-page invoice that might enhance the variety of justices on the courtroom from 9 to 13, organising a direct alternative for President Biden to appoint 4 new justices to be confirmed within the Democratic-led Senate.
They argued the far-right has hijacked the courtroom due to “norm-breaking” strikes by Senate Chief Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and increasing the variety of justices is important to revive stability and integrity to the very best courtroom in America.
However the proposal bought fast pushback not simply from Republicans, however from prime Democrats too, notably Biden and Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Biden final week introduced a 36-member bipartisan fee will maintain public conferences to judge courtroom reforms reminiscent of the dimensions of the courtroom and time period limits on justices. The brand new panel can have six months from its first assembly to finish a report on a path ahead.
White Home Press Secretary Jen Psaki mentioned Thursday Biden is awaiting the fee’s report earlier than taking a place on increasing the courtroom. And Pelosi mentioned she additionally helps Biden’s fee and does not plan to advance the court-packing laws to a full Home vote.
“I’ve no plans to deliver it to the ground,” Pelosi mentioned.
Rep. Jake Auchincloss, D-Mass., instructed Fox Information Saturday he, too, needs to await the outcomes of the fee that will examine the problem with the “gravity and the diligence that it deserves.”
However the freshman lawmaker blamed McConnell for making the Supreme Court docket so political by the ways he used to verify three of President Trump’s nominees and refusing to even maintain a listening to for President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.
“The overarching aim is to de-politicize the Supreme Court docket,” Auchincloss instructed Fox Information Stay. “We’re on this place proper now as a result of for the final decade Chief McConnell politicized the courtroom by way of antics like blocking Merrick Garland from even getting on the Senate flooring.”
McConnell has argued the court-packing proposal is a menace to the Supreme Court docket and went as far as to name the trouble a “sword dangling over the justices” and a type of “hostage-taking.”
However Auchincloss mentioned McConnell’s harsh phrases are one more reason why Biden was clever to nominate an impartial fee to review courtroom reforms.
“It is overheated rhetoric like that that has politicized the Supreme Court docket within the first place and it is precisely why we’d like judicial specialists to sit down in a politically insulated room and talk about this subject with the gravity that it deserves,” Auchincloss mentioned. “I believe we need to give them the time and the area to give you reasoned suggestions.”