Many experts have concluded last night’s CNN Democratic Presidential debate was won by Mayor Pete Buttigieg.  Moreover many “conservatives” liked Mayor Pete.  However, on the issue that RNLA has been tracking- the candidate’s positions on judicial nominees and court packing- Mayor Pete was again a trainwreck last night. His position last night:

Now, I'm not talking about packing the court just with people who agree with me, although I certainly will appoint people who share my values, for example, the idea that women's reproductive freedom is an American right.

What I'm talking about is reforms that will depoliticize the court. We can't go on like this, where every single time there is a vacancy, we have this apocalyptic ideological firefight over what to do next.

Now, one way to fix this would be to have a 15-member court where five of the members can only be appointed by unanimous agreement of the other 10. 

As we celebrate Constitution Day today, it is worth remembering that the Founders carefully wrote the Constitution to ensure that our third branch of government was independent through mechanisms such as life tenure, the prohibition against diminution of salary, and the nomination and confirmation mechanism itself, and that judicial independence is what preserves the Constitution and our system of government.  

Yet many liberals now want to undermine the independence of the judiciary because judges do not always reach the outcomes they desire to advance their progressive policy goals.  

Or perhaps more accurately, they are attempting to redefine judicial independence to mean a judiciary that advances progressive policy goals and interests.  

On the Presidential Primary debate stage and in general, Democrats and their liberal base have gone so far left that they are regularly getting called out by liberal-icon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  This is because, while Justice Ginsburg is still very liberal and no friend of moderates or conservatives, she is looking at least rational and realistic.  Let’s run through a few issues and items.

For years liberals have used the courts to get what they could not get from voters, the President or Congress.  President Trump and Senators like Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham are doing a great job of nominating and confirming judges that respect the rule of law and not liberals' political wishes.  So now liberal politicians are taking to threatening the courts to get what they want.  As the Wall Street Journal opined last week:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made news this week for not only once again praising Justice Kavanaugh, but for also trashing a new liberal wackadoodle idea - COURT PACKING. Ironically, there is arguably no greater living liberal icon than RBG, so will Democrats listen to her wisdom? 

This time when she defended Justice Brett Kavanaugh she also defended Justice Neil Gorsuch. 

Few things inflame Democrats more than Supreme Court Justices with whom they disagree.  On the eve of the last days of the Supreme Court term, and on the eve of the first Democrat Presidential debates, we thought it worth revisiting an issue that is certain to be brought up again by Democrats in their effort to outflank each to the left: court packing.  The master of Senate procedure, attorney Marty Gold, has a great new article on the topic that delves into the history of the issue.

A litmus test for 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates has become the issue of court packing.  As 2016 Republican Presidential candidate and Florida Senator Marco Rubio pointed out in a recent op-ed:

Court packing is quickly becoming a litmus test for 2020 Democratic candidates as this ugly, winner-take-all rhetoric gains prominence in progressive circles.

Our nation may not be on the brink of civil war or dissolution, but we are suffering a crisis of confidence and we cannot withstand further erosion of trust in one another and our institutions.  The rhetoric used by some of my Democratic colleagues that suggests our institutions are increasingly unable to resolve modern society’s conflicts is dangerous.

Since President Trump has been elected, Democrats have been sore losers in more ways then is possible to count. While Hillary Clinton is legendary for her never-ending list of excuses and people to blame for her loss, liberals continue to push the sore loser envelope in more ways than bitterness.   The latest is the effort to pack the Supreme Court.  After their unprecedented, and ultimately unsuccessful effort to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh, liberals are pushing a new idea should they win the Presidency.