fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court
Page: 2
Border Patrol agent Lonnie Swartz, left, walks into federal court in Tucson, Ariz. in March 2018. (Ron Medvescek/Arizona Daily Star via AP, File)
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Thursday not to allow the families of Mexican teenagers shot by U.S. border agents to sue those agents for civil damages.
The federal government is not a direct party to a pair of pending appeals, but the justices had asked the Justice Department to weigh in with its views. The high court was urged in a government brief to take up the issue and rule for the agents.
At issue: whether the border agents deserved “qualified immunity” from lawsuits over their official conduct. In separate incidents, both fired their weapons across the border, killing the teens.
One case involved a lawsuit from the family of Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican citizen, who was shot to death by border agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., near El Paso, Texas, in 2010. The Justice Department earlier declined to pursue criminal charges against Mesa.
Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, seen in the picture, was killed in 2012. (AP Photo/Valeria Fernandez, File)
CLARENCE THOMAS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST ‘RELIGIOUS TESTS’ FOR JUDICIAL PICKS
The other case involved Lonnie Swartz – a U.S. Border Patrol agent accused of using deadly force in the killing of Jose Rodriguez, a 16-year-old Mexican boy, near Nogales, Ariz., in 2012.
Both agents said in the separate incidents they were being attacked by people throwing rocks from the other side of the Mexican border. Swartz was acquitted of second-degree murder.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
If the justices take up the cases, it could hinge on whether the Mexican plaintiffs could rely on a 1971 Supreme Court decision (known as Bivens), allowing a lawsuit seeking money from federal officials for violations of the Constitution.
The justices could decide in coming weeks whether to put the cases on their argument docket.
Source: Fox News Politics
Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice in October. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
More than two dozen progressive groups have asked the House Oversight and Judiciary committees to examine whether Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury during his Senate confirmation hearings last fall.
A letter addressed to the panels Thursday from groups including the Women’s March, UltraViolet, the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee contends that “many issues went unresolved during last year’s confirmation process, when Senate Republicans jettisoned all procedural norms and abandoned any sense of fairness, and they must be investigated.”
HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMOCRAT SAYS KAVANAUGH WILL ‘LIKELY’ BE INVESTIGATED FOR PERJURY
The issues identified by the groups include “whether he [Kavanaugh] sexually assaulted the women who credibly accused him of doing so [and] whether he lied about his financial debt and how it was repaid; and whether he is ultimately fit to be a justice on the Supreme Court.”
The “financial debt” refers to reports following Kavanaugh’s nomination that he racked up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt buying Washington Nationals season tickets for himself and friends, as well as for home improvements. Kavanaugh and the White House said the debts were paid off or fell below the legal reporting limit after Kavanaugh’s friends reimbursed him for the baseball tickets, an explanation the groups said “simply makes no sense … The White House’s involvement in trying to explain it [the debt] away only heightens the need for further investigation and public answers.”
The debate over Kavanaugh’s confirmation was rocked by sexual assault allegations dating back to his days in high school and college in the 1980s. Kavanaugh angrily denied the allegations in a dramatic appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27. Following a brief delay to accommodate a supplemental FBI investigation into the claims, Kavanaugh was confirmed by the full Senate on Oct. 6.
FEDERAL COURT PANEL DISMISSES APPEALS OVER JUSTICE KAVANAUGH MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS
In December, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Judicial Council dismissed 83 ethics complaints against Kavanaugh dating back more than a decade to his confirmation hearing for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In dismissing the complaints, Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote that while “the allegations in the complaint are serious,” they could not be reviewed because they were filed under a federal law that does not apply to Supreme Court justices. The council dismissed 20 legal appeals involving the complaints last month.
Ahead of Kavanaugh’s confirmation in October, then-House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., told ABC News’ “This Week” that lawmakers “would have to investigate any credible allegations … of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Following November’s midterm elections, The Federalist reported that Nadler was overheard discussing the possibility of impeaching Kavanaugh in a phone conversation on an Amtrak train to Washington.
“The worst-case scenario — or best case depending on your point of view — you prove he committed perjury, about a terrible subject and the Judicial Conference recommends you impeach him. So the president appoints someone just as bad,” Nadler reportedly said, adding that there was “a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury” during his confirmation hearings.
Source: Fox News Politics
FILE – In this Jan. 18, 2019, file photo, anti-abortion activists protest outside of the U.S. Supreme Court during the March for Life in Washington. A committee in Texas considered a bill this week that would have opened the door to put women to death for their abortions. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
A Texas House bill that would have allowed the criminal prosecution of women and doctors for abortions failed to make it past a committee hearing this week.
Texas House Bill 896 called for state prosecutors to bring either assault or homicide charges against women who received abortions or physicians who carried out abortions through medical procedures or prescription medication. Homicide is a capital crime in the state of Texas, meaning the bill opened up the possibility of women and physicians receiving the death penalty for abortions.
The language of the proposed legislation failed to mention any exceptions for cases of rape, incest or pregnancies that posed health risks for mothers. The bill stated that from the time of conception, unborn children would be protected by Texas state law “regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision.”
OHIO ‘HEARTBEAT’ ABORTION BILL CLEARS LEGISLATURE, AWAITS GOVERNOR’S SIGNATURE
The committee’s Republican chairman, Jeff Leach, who is also an avid pro-life supporter, announced Wednesday that he would not move the bill for consideration by the whole House because criminally prosecuting women who receive abortions would only distract from the pro-life cause.
“I cannot in good conscience support House Bill 896 – legislation that subjects women who undergo abortions to criminal liability and even the possibility of the death penalty,” Leach said in a statement posted to Twitter. “Trusted pro-life legislators and advocates agree with me that this bill moves our state and the pro-life cause in the wrong direction.”
Although the bill will not be considered further in the state House, the hearing came at a time when fetal heartbeat legislation, laws that would outlaw abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy when doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat, are gaining momentum in Republican-controlled state legislatures around the country. Other state governments fear the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Hundreds of advocates, representing both pro-choice and pro-life causes, testified in a two-day hearing Monday and Tuesday in front of the Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, The Washington Post reported. One woman, Sonya Gonnella, who announced herself at the hearing as “a follower of the lord Jesus Christ” vocalized the strong religious beliefs behind the fight to ban abortion.
“God’s word says, ‘He who sheds man’s blood, by man — the civil government — his blood will be shed,’” said Gonnella, quoting the Book of Genesis and calling on representatives to “repent with us.”
Others harshly opposed the bill during the hearing. Some pro-life organizations, including Texans for Life, opposed the bill for its drastic changes to state penal code.
“I’m trying to reconcile in my head the arguments that I heard tonight about how essentially one is okay with subjecting a woman to the death penalty for the exact — to do to her the exact same thing that one is alleging she is doing to a child,” state Rep. Victoria Neave, a Democrat who represents part of Dallas County, told The Washington Post.
The committee’s chairman received harsh criticism for opening up the bill for consideration in a public hearing in the first place. The author of the bill, Republican state Rep. Tony Tinderholt, received death threats when he first introduced the measure in 2017 and was placed under state protection.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP
Tinderholt told The Texas Observer that the bill was necessary to hold women “more personally responsible” for the possible consequence of sexual relationships: children.
Source: Fox News Politics
Christopher Scalia, the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, said it’s a “mistake” to think Justice Neil Gorsuch would decide the same as his father after some in the media have labeled him the “new Scalia.”
The comparison came because, Justice Scalia, similar to Gorsuch, was friends with Justice Ginsberg even though he had conservative values. Justice Scalia and Ginsberg had similar upbringings and enjoyed going to the opera together.
CHRISTOPHER SCALIA: THE FAITH OF MY FATHER
“I think it’s a mistake to think that Justice Gorsuch would decide every case the way my father would’ve,” Scala told “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning. “I don’t think that’s the right way to look at it, but I think his general approach to interpreting the Constitution and the law is very much in line with my father’s.
“What that means is that…very often there will be opinions that don’t go in line with conservatve public policy makers wants but which are really in keeping with the original understanding of the Constitution.”
The eighth child of nine kids, Christopher, said he was impacted by the role religion played in his father’s life.
So he compiled speeches and excerpts from his father in a new book, “On Faith: Lessons from an American believer.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
In the book, Christopher notes, readers are able to see what Scalia believed is the real role of religion in the public sphere.
The late Supreme Court justice was not known to be showy about his faith, but everyone knew he was a very devout Catholic.
Source: Fox News Politics
The Supreme Court said Missouri can execute an inmate who argued his rare medical condition will result in severe pain if he is given death-causing drugs. The justices are ruling 5-4 Monday against inmate Russell Bucklew. (AP)
A Missouri man convicted in a brutal rape and murder can be executed by lethal injection because he is not guaranteed a “painless death,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday, quashing Russell Bucklew’s bid to avoid the needle because of his rare medical condition.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court granted Missouri the right to proceed with execution protocol for Bucklew, who was sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Michael Sanders, who was dating Bucklew’s ex-girlfriend. Bucklew had previously assaulted the couple and stalked his former lover the day of the murder in order to find out where she was living. After shooting and killing Sanders, Bucklew fired at his former girlfriend’s 6-year-old child — and missed — before kidnapping the woman and raping her several times. He was eventually arrested after a car chase and police shootout.
“Today we bring this case to a close at last because we agree with the courts below that Mr. Bucklew’s claim isn’t supported by either the law or the evidence,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said in summarizing his majority opinion.
PENNSYLVANIA MAN GIVEN DEATH SENTENCE FOR RAPE, MURDER OF TEEN; JUDGE SAYS ‘YOU HAVE NO SOUL’
The court previously ruled inmates challenging the method a state plans to use to execute them have to show there’s an alternative that is likely to be less painful.
The Supreme Court said Missouri can execute Russell Bucklew because the Constitution does not guarantee a painless death.
Bucklew argued death by lethal injection would be extremely painful because a blood-filled tumor in his throat caused by a rare medical condition would likely burst during the execution — causing him to choke on his own blood and cut off oxygen to his body for up to four minutes.
He said this would violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. As an alternative, Bucklew wanted to die by inhaling pure nitrogen gas through a mask, a method no state has ever used to execute a prisoner.
The five justices in the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Gorsuch — rejected Bucklew’s argument and said the inmate failed to show that the alternative method “would significantly reduce his risk of pain.”
MAN FOUND GUILTY OF MURDERING NYC JOGGER KARINA VETRANO
Gorsuch said Bucklew failed to show the state would carry out the alternative execution.
“The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death — something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes,” Gorsuch also wrote.
The Supreme Court granted Bucklew a stay of execution hours before he was scheduled to die last year. His life was also spared in 2014 when his execution was halted at the 11th hour.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Chris Nuelle, a spokesman for the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, said in a statement that Monday’s ruling put the state and Bucklew’s victims “one step closer to justice.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News National
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., diverged from some of his fellow candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination on Monday by arguing against expanding the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court.
Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he was concerned that if Democrats take the White House in 2020 and decide to add more justices to the Supreme Court, then the Republicans will just do the same the next time they win the presidency.
“My worry is that once the Republicans are in power, they will just do the same thing,” Sanders said while answering a question at the We The People summit in Washington.
Sanders added that he wasn’t totally sold on the idea of also issuing term limits to Supreme Court justices, but instead favored rotating justices on and off the bench from the lower appellate courts.
BERNIE SANDERS ANNOUNCES TOP STAFFERS IN WAKE OF SHAKEUP
The idea of expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been discussed in Democratic circles since Neil Gorsuch was confirmed after former President Barack Obama’s choice — Judge Merrick Garland — languished in the Senate without a hearing or vote during the 2016 election year.
But the movement has taken on more of a public face as a number of high-profile 2020 Democratic candidates have embraced the move in the aftermath of Brett Kavanaugh’s controversial confirmation process to the court.
Democratic anger over Trump’s success filling the range of federal courts with conservative jurists has been fueling much of the recent court expansion talk. A private advocacy group called “Pack the Court” says it’s raised a half-million dollars to gin up support among the 2020 contenders. The group is partnering with other like-minded organizations.
“We strongly believe that reforming the court — especially by expanding it — is the cornerstone for re-building American democracy,” said Brian Fallon, head of Demand Justice and former Hillary Clinton press secretary. “The Kavanaugh court is a partisan operation, and democracy simply cannot function when stolen courts operate as political shills.”
ELIZABETH WARREN PITCHES POLICIES TOTALING $100 TRILLION AT TOWN HALL: ESTIMATES
Candidates including Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the court if they become president.
“First they steal a Supreme Court seat, and then they turn around and change the rules on the filibuster on a Supreme Court seat,” Warren said in a recent radio interview. “So when it swings back to us, what are we going to do? I think all the options are on the table.”
Many constitutional scholars agree with Sanders’ assessment that the political implications of expanding the court could be perilous.
“Something this controversial could be bad for Democrats indeed in the 2020 election,” said Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Where does it end? If President Kamala Harris adds two justices, then the next Republican president adds two more in a constant cycle, until we end up with 134 people on Supreme Court.”
The Constitution does not establish a set number of justices; that is up to Congress. There were initially six members of the high court — then seven, then nine, then down to eight, then up to ten for a while, then back down to eight, and then at last ticking up to nine more than a century ago, in 1869.
Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative stalwart, is rumored to be President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court should Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat become available, according to an Axios report that cited close confidants of the president.
Barrett, 46, was considered to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy last year, but the president said he was “saving her for Ginsburg,” the report said.
Trump reportedly told people “I’m saving her for Ginsburg” as recently as two days before he nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, according to Axios. The report could not be independently verified by Fox News, but Barrett has been mentioned as a favorite by Trump in the past.
Trump advisers were concerned that Barrett, who staunchly opposes abortion, would alienate GOP moderates like Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the report said. They were also confident that Republicans would maintain their control of the Senate and nominating another conservative judge to the Supreme Court wouldn’t be necessary at the time, the report said.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG MAKES PUBLIC APPEARANCE, FIRST SINCE SURGERY
Ginsburg, who turned 86 last month, is unlikely to retire while Trump is in office. Health problems — including undergoing lung cancer surgery in December — kept her away from the bench for several months. She returned in February and is reportedly now in good health.
Trump appointed Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017. Barrett, who is open about her Catholicism, was grilled by Democrats during her Senate confirmation. Should Barrett be nominated to the Supreme Court, a contentious confirmation process would undoubtedly play out.
Source: Fox News Politics
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday sided with liberal justices in a ruling that delayed the execution of a cop killer amid claims that religious freedom would be violated if the death-row inmate’s Buddhist spiritual adviser wasn’t present during his final moments.
The nation’s highest court blocked the execution of Patrick Murphy about two hours after he could have been executed. Murphy is a member of the “Texas 7” gang of escaped prisoners who are awaiting the death penalty over the fatal shooting of a suburban Dallas police officer.
Murphy’s attorney argued that Texas prison officials were violating his client’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion by preventing the inmate’s spiritual adviser, a Buddhist priest, from witnessing the execution.
TRUMP PICKS GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH TAKE OPPOSITE SIDES ON 2 OF 3 SUPREME COURT RULINGS TUESDAY
But while Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would allow the execution to proceed, echoing lower courts’ view that rejected Murphy’s arguments, Kavanaugh — like Gorsuch, an appointee of President Trump — found himself on the opposite side from the conservative justices.
This undated photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows Patrick Murphy, a member of the notorious “Texas 7” gang of escaped prisoners who was scheduled to be executed Thursday, March 28, 2019. (Texas Department of Criminal Justice via AP)
This follows the rulings last week, where in two out of three decisions by the high court, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh found themselves on opposing sides.
Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion on Thursday that while the Texas prison system allows a Christian or Muslim inmate to have their religious advisers present in the death chamber or in the viewing room, inmates of other religious denominations can have their adviser only in the viewing room and not in the execution room itself.
“As this Court has repeatedly held, governmental discrimination against religion in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious organizations, and religious speech violates the Constitution,” he wrote. “The government may not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religious denominations.”
The justice added that Murphy cannot be executed until the state allows his Buddhist adviser or another Buddhist reverend of the state’s choosing to be present in the chamber during the execution.
“What the State may not do, in my view, is allow Christian or Muslim inmates but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room,” he wrote.
“As this Court has repeatedly held, governmental discrimination against religion in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious organizations, and religious speech violates the Constitution.”
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS’ RECENT VOTES RAISE DOUBTS ABOUT ‘CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION’ ON SUPREME COURT
Officials from Texas argued in court that the reason only Christian and Muslims religious advisers are allowed is due to security concerns, noting that only chaplains who had been extensively vetted by the prison system were allowed within the chamber.
Murphy was one of the inmates who escaped from a South Texas prison in December 2000, despite being just 15 months away from being released on mandatory parole.
During the six-week manhunt, he and his gang committed multiple robberies, including the one in which they shot 29-year-old Irving police Officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times, killing him.
As they were being captured, one of the gang members killed himself, while six other criminals were convicted of killing the officer and sentenced to death.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Murphy would have been the fifth gang member to be executed. The sixth inmate, Randy Halprin, has not been given an execution date.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
What are ‘bump stocks?’
President Trump is calling for a ban on ‘bump stocks.’ Twelve ‘bump stocks’ were found in the hotel room of the Las Vegas massacre shooter. Lawmakers, including some Republicans are concerned about their capabilities but what are they?
A newly enforced federal ban on firearm bump stocks will stay in place for the time being, after the Supreme Court again rejected efforts by gun-rights groups to delay its implementation.
The devices allow semi-automatic weapons to fire with greater rapidity, like machine guns.
An order issued Thursday was the second one from the high court. Chief Justice John Roberts turned aside a similar request earlier this week as litigation over the government’s new policy continues in federal court.
President Trump signed an order on Feb. 20, 2018, directing the Justice Department to ban "bump stocks" and other gun modifiers that make semi-automatic firearms fire faster. The Trump administration’s ban went into effect Tuesday, and follows calls for action after the 2017 massacre in Las Vegas, where 58 people were killed by a gunman who modified his weapons with bump stocks.
BUMP-STOCK BAN HAS GUN-RIGHTS ADVOCATES UP IN ARMS
The case — Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Barr — puts the Trump administration in an unusual position of arguing against gun-rights groups.
"We must move past clichés and tired debates and focus on evidence-based solutions and security measures that actually work," Trump previously said during a ceremony to honor the 17 victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks could fire hundreds of rounds per minute, according to experts. They were originally created to make it easier for people with disabilities to fire a gun.
The device essentially replaces the gun’s stock and pistol grip and causes the weapon to buck back and forth, repeatedly "bumping" the trigger against the shooter’s finger.
Since the Las Vegas shooting, states and cities increasingly pushed for legislation to ban the devices.
Massachusetts became the first state to pass legislation banning the device after the incident. The state law, which went into effect Feb. 1, 2018, prohibits possession of the device under all circumstances. It also bans the possession of trigger cranks.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) even called for an immediate review of bump stocks after the Vegas shooting.
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations," the NRA said in a statement at the time.
Fox News’ Jennifer Earl and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo weighed in on a hot new topic on the 2020 presidential campaign trail.
Several Democratic contenders are talking up plans to overhaul the Supreme Court, with some offering proposals to add up to 15 more members, but Yoo said that would be a disaster.
“I think this is, of all the crazy ideas that you are seeing kicked around by the Democratic progressive, progressive aggressive candidates this is the worst one,” Yoo said on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday.
Candidates including Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled a willingness to embrace expanding the Supreme Court if they become president. Progressive groups are putting their money behind the message, as part of an effort to tap into lingering liberal anger over President Trump‘s two nominees confirmed to the high court.
2020 DEMOCRATS EYE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: ‘ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE’
“This is actually an effort to short circuit one of the Constitution’s restraints so that we don’t just have rule by the simple majority,” said Yoo.
“If you try to pack the Supreme Court you are just going to turn the Supreme Court and the judiciary just into another political actor and when Republicans get back in charge they’ll do the same thing, they will start adding more and more justices in the court to get the people they want there and soon the Supreme Court will just be like another branch of the legislature and not a serious small body that’s there to interpret the Constitution."
“I think this is, of all the crazy ideas that you are seeing kicked around by the Democratic progressive, progressive aggressive candidates this is the worst one.”
Neil Gorsuch was confirmed after former President Barack Obama’s choice — Judge Merrick Garland — remained in the Senate without a hearing or vote during the 2016 election year.
Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was defined by allegations of sexual misconduct. Both were confirmed mostly along party lines.
Many Democrats think the solution would be to add more members while changing the rules for who can serve and for how long.
Among the proposals are rotating justices on and off the bench, as well as imposing term limits for currently life-tenured federal judges.
BETO O’ROURKE PITCHES DRASTIC OVERHAUL OF SUPREME COURT
O’Rourke floated the idea of having as many as 15 judges on the bench while speaking to supporters in Iowa earlier this month.
“What if there were five justices selected by Democrats, five justices selected by Republicans, and those ten then picked five more justices independent of those who chose the first ten?” he told supporters.
“I think that’s an idea we should explore.”
He added the idea of adding term limits on those justices so that there’s “a more regular rotation through there.” O’Rourke said the court should “be able to reflect the diversity” of America.
President Trump fired back at such proposals. "I wouldn’t entertain that. The only reason that they’re doing that is they want to try and catch up," he said when asked about so-called court-packing schemes.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“The size of the Supreme Court is up to Congress and this is something that progressives have tried before, FDR famously tried to pack the court in 1937, his own party actually stopped him,” Yoo said on Fox & Friends.
“We’ve stayed at nine justices in the court for about 130, 140 years and it’s because it’s a simple number."
Source: Fox News Politics
MAGA One Radio