Tipsheet

Still a Hard 'No:' Americans Reject Court-Packing, Again, in New Poll

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  June 29, 2022 10:35 AM

Democrats are the party of norms and institutions, just ask them. Throughout the Trump era, and post-January 6, the "progressives" have presented themselves as vital guardians of our nation's very system of government – valiantly beating back myriad predations from unscrupulous, power-hungry right-wingers. The trouble with this story, of course, is that when said system doesn't work in their favor, resulting in undesirable outcomes for their tribe, leftists shift seamlessly to demanding that these same norms and institutions be burned to the ground. But that's good institutional arson, you see; for a righteous cause. That's quite literally the mentality. Whether it's uprooting the electoral college, blowing up the filibuster (and therefore the Senate), adding states to the union for brazenly political reasons, or packing the Supreme Court, there isn't an institution in sight that seems to be spared their wrath.

Various Democrats have been openly floating the idea of adding justices to the High Court for several years, a banana republic-style abuse that famously failed in spectacular fashion the one time it was attempted. Now that the Dobbs decision has restored the issue of abortion to the states and legislators, adding seats to the Court has again become a popular demand in some quarters, in addition to impeachment proceedings over bogus "lying" accusations. Polling has shown that the American people are opposed to packing the Court (which means adding seats, not filling vacant seats efficiently, the latter of which Democrats have wrongly termed 'packing.' to muddy the waters). Post-Dobbs, that position is unchanged: 


The October 2020 poll referenced above found just about one-third of voters (overwhelmingly Democrats) in favor of a court-packing ("expansion") scheme, with a solid majority opposed. The new survey produces nearly an identical result, even in the face of an intensive effort from the left to delegitimize SCOTUS, in the immediate aftermath of a highly controversial ruling. And this particular polling series has been an outlier over the last few months, showing Democrats leading on the generic 2022 ballot in May and June, by five and seven points, respectively. Most other national surveys have shown a virtual tie or a GOP lead. The NPR/Marist poll shows the Dobbs decision underwater by nearly 20 points (a Politico poll put the split at 40/49), but also shows court-packing unpopular by a greater margin. One wonders how many of the Americans who say they're pro-Roe and anti-Dobbs believe that overturning the former with the latter means that most or all abortions are now banned in America. That's been the misinformation campaign that's been waged by the abortion lobby for many years, aided and abetted by the activist 'news' media to this day. Here's yet another example of this falsehood being spread in recent days, this time in the pages of The New York Times: 


Elected Republicans "didn't have to take the politically-risky step of banning abortions; the court did it for them," The Times article asserted. Absolutely false. The Court did no such thing. But the left believes it's politically advantageous to tell people that's the case, so they're doing it, even if it means presenting flagrantly wrong information in "news" reports. For many journalists, abortion is more sacred than journalistic ethics. Consider this editorial comment from unofficial NARAL spokesman Terry Moran, whose day job is being a national news correspondent for ABC: 

"This is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades. It changes the status of American women as citizens of the United States and as citizens of their states. That's the big picture, but let's not mince words. Women will die because of this ruling," Moran said. "In 11 states including Texas and Florida, state governments can seize control of the bodies of women who have been raped," [he continued].

It certainly sounds like Moran is passionately in favor of abortion, like most people in his profession, but his job is (ostensibly) to deliver the news. If an anchor or reporter had used similarly loaded terms to argue the other side – "let's not mince words, fewer children will die because of this ruling, and fewer bodies will be seized and dismembered" – there would almost certainly be a newsroom revolt, perhaps resulting in professional sanctions. But outward activism on this issue in favor of legalized abortion is evidently allowed, expected, or even encouraged. This is who they are. And how about this framing from the Los Angeles Times, which tries to mash up the "democracy!" trope with abortion cheerleading? 


Reversing a decree by seven unelected men in the 1970s, who hijacked the democratic process by fabricating a "right" out of thin air – and returning the policy question to elected representatives – is now an example of the "backsliding" of "democracy"? It appears as though "democracy" means...whatever liberals like, and everything else is an assault against it, or whatever. Some of these people aren't even trying to feign balance or even-handedness. There are larger truths and political outcomes at stake, in their minds, apparently. In case you missed it, I'll leave you with this: 

Recommended

Remember the Man Accused of Murdering Four University of Idaho Students? Well... Madeline Leesman
Since When Did We Republicans Start Being Against Punishing Criminals? Kurt Schlichter