Sorry that I didn’t notice that this article was published in November 2017.
Now that the far-right will have a five-man Majority on the Supreme Court, it May no longer matter what happens in the lower courts. If one of the four liberal judges should retire or die, the rightwing stranglehold would be secure for many decades to come. Five is enough, and the oldest is not yet 70.
This column in the Washington Post reports on a frankly terrifying Republican Plan to expand the number of judicial seats and fill them as rapidly as possible before the 2018 election.
Conservatives have a new court-packing plan, and in the spirit of the holiday, it’s a turducken of a scheme: a regulatory rollback hidden inside a civil rights reversal stuffed into a Trumpification of the courts. If conservatives get their way, President Trump will add twice as many lifetime members to the federal judiciary in the next 12 months (650) as Barack Obama named in eight years (325). American law will never be the same.
The “outer turkey” in the plan is the ongoing Trumpification of the courts. In the final two years of Obama’s presidency, Senate Republicans engaged in tenacious obstruction to leave as many judicial vacancies unfilled as possible. The Garland- to-Gorsuch Supreme Court switch is the most visible example of this tactic but far from the only one: Due to GOP obstruction, “the number of [judicial] vacancies . . . on the table when [Trump] was sworn in was unprecedented,” White House Counsel Donald McGahn recently boasted to the conservative Federalist Society.
Trump is wasting no time in filling the 103 judicial vacancies he inherited. In the first nine months of Obama’s tenure, he nominated 20 judges to the federal trial and appellate courts; in Trump’s first nine months, he named 58. Senate Republicans are racing these nominees through confirmation; last week, breaking a 100-year-old tradition, they eliminated the “blue slip” rule that allowed home-state senators to object to particularly problematic nominees. The rush to Trumpify the judiciary includes nominees rated unqualified by the American Bar Association, nominees with outrageously conservative views and nominees significantly younger (and, therefore, likely to serve longer) than those of previous presidents. As a result, by sometime next year, 1 in 8 cases filed in federal court will be heard by a judge picked by Trump. Many of these judges will likely still be serving in 2050.
But even this plan — to fill approximately 150 judicial vacancies before the 2018 elections — is not enough for conservatives.
Enter the next element of the court-packing turducken: a new plan written by the crafty co-founder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. In a paper that deserves credit for its transparency (it features a section titled “Undoing President Barack Obama’s Judicial Legacy”), Calabresi proposes to pack the federal courts with a “minimum” of 260 — and possibly as many as 447 — newly created judicial positions. Under this plan, the 228-year-old federal judiciary would increase — in a single year — by 30 to 50 percent.
Never mind that Republicans saw no urgency in filling judicial vacancies while Obama was president. Never mind that they ignored pleas from conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to fill positions in courts facing “judicial emergencies.” Now, conservatives want a 30 to 50 percent increase in the number of federal judgeships. And they have a clear idea of who should fill this massive number of new posts: “President Trump and the Republican Senate will need to fill all of these new judgeships in 2018, before the next session of Congress.”
Almost overnight, the judicial branch would come to consist of almost equal parts judges picked by nine presidents combined — Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama — and judges picked by one: Donald J. Trump. The effect on our civil rights and liberties would be astounding. And a continuation of the pattern of Trump’s nominees to date — more white and more male than any president’s in nearly 30 years — would roll back decades of progress in judicial diversity.
But even that isn’t enough for the Turducken Court Packers. They have jammed one more “treat” inside this turkey.
Calabresi has also proposed that Congress abolish 158 administrative law judgeships in federal regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission, and replace these impartial fact-finders with a new corps of 158 Trump-selected judges who — unlike current administrative law judges — would serve for life.
These new Trump administrative law judges would have vast power over environmental, health and safety, fair competition, communications, labor, financial and consumer regulation for decades. Unlike the existing administrative law judges, selected as nonpartisan members of the civil service, Calabresi’s replacement corps would all be picked in a single year, by a single man: Donald J. Trump.
And if this breathtaking transformation of our federal judicial system isn’t jarring enough, Calabresi has one final treat: a proposal that Congress do all of this in the tax-cut bill that Congress is trying to pass before it leaves for the holidays.
Progressives need to mount a more cohesive and effective plan to slow down the Trump train of judicial transformation. Otherwise, we’ll have a court-packing turducken for Thanksgiving, and a revolutionary rollback in rights and regulation for Christmas.

What’s next? Changing Congress’s name to the Duma?
LikeLike
“May no longer matter what happens in the lower courts. If one of the four liberal judges should retire or die, the rightwing stranglehold would be secure for many decades to come.”
It definitely matters what happens in the lower courts. The district courts are arguably the most important courts in the entire system. Many of their decisions are never appealed. Their decisions determine how all of the issues that are appealed are framed on appeal. Appellate courts give their decisions deference, even, in practice, when it comes to legal questions that are technically reviewed de novo. Most federal appellate judges are drawn from the ranks of the district courts. And SCOTUS hears just a tiny fraction of the cases that are decided in the district courts.
LikeLike
“a proposal that Congress do all of this in the tax-cut bill that Congress is trying to pass before it leaves for the holidays.”
Yes, and likely to be accomplished unless someone in the Democratic Party takes a leadership role and also has a fresh strategy and campaign savvy. The action from Congress will be as surreptitious as they can make it, better to slip it past almost everyone so it is a done deal.
Did you notice that the House “whispered” that NATO should be kept in place… real courage in disagreeing with the one en route to insult the British and chat with Putin.
LikeLike
Why do you think devos and the rest of the lackeys in the cabinet keep saying “It will be up to the States.”
Because everything they care about has to start local and climb it’s way to the fed courts.
School prayer? Local – gets appealed – goes up a notch – gets appealed…
Janus? District court. Lost. Appealed to Circuit Court. Lost. Supreme Court. Won
Scopes? Started with Tennessee law prohibiting teaching evolution. State supreme court ruled but technicality problem. What would be next. District to Circult to Supreme.
Textbooks.
Unions.
Vouchers.
Tax Credits.
Arming teachers.
Termination without due process.
Gerrymandering Congressional districts AND school board representation.
Sure – throw it all “back to the states.” Wait five minutes for the appeal to any injustice to get to a federally appointed judge – fast track to Supreme Court and its GOP Rubber Stamp of Loyalty to the President.
And – it’s not just justices.
They are buying up every MEDIA OUTLET they can control.
They are redrawing Congressional districts.
NOVEMBER MATTERS.
SILENCE MATTERS
EDUCATING the base they are being used matters.
LikeLike
Face it: There’s nothing anyone can do to stop the Republican plan to pack the courts and conservatives will rule the courts for decades to come. All thanks to the incestuous Democratic National Committee and its arrogant 2016 campaign. The Trump base is not going to be swayed by any Democratic or progressive arguments in this November’s elections. And the Democratic Party can’t count on the “progressives” in its ranks because there is no united progressive group, only a weak coalition of splinter groups that each pursues its own pet issue and that stay at home from voting if their issue doesn’t make the top of the Dem list. If Dems can turn out truly high percentages of loyal Dems and can manager to convert a significant number of independents, the Dems might be able to hold onto the current balance of power in Congress — with a very, very, very slim chance of gaining a very, very, very narrow majority. But it will take a LOT of work and a high percentage of Democratic Party members to turn out and vote a straight ticket. Sad situation our nation is in and will be in for decades to come as liberal issues get slammed by the Republican judges who will dominate the court systems.
LikeLike
Already, 75% (the last time I checked) of the Supreme Court justices since FDR have been chosen by the GOP presidents. Yet these justices, including the likes of Earl Warren, have chosen wisely.
It was not until the modern conservative movement thrust politics into the selection of justices that we started getting justices that were bought by powerful people. Judicial independence? A thing of the past. The way the nomination of Garland was ignored by the congress changed the power structure in our government forever. Just wait until the democrats take power.
LikeLike
With stacked far right wing/libertarian anti-government courts, we can forget about ever getting universal health care in the next 500 years or so.
Here’s a tragic health care story that is uniquely American from USA Today: SANGER, Texas — A Texas Army veteran and his wife are considering getting a divorce in order to qualify for Medicaid and alleviate some of the costs of their daughter’s healthcare.
Maria and Jake Grey of Sanger have a daughter with a rare chromosomal disorder. Even with health insurance, the Greys spend upwards of $15,000 a year out of pocket on her health care.
The Greys, who now live in Sanger, have two little girls: Fairen, who’s two, and Brighton, who’s six—but developmentally is still a baby.
The family calls Brighton a beautiful blessing.
Caring for her is something they feel blessed to do, but it has been difficult.“You know, when you have a newborn, everything gets really stressful. You really have to adapt to someone needing you 24/7, all the time,” Maria explained. “We’ve had a newborn for six-and-a-half years.”Brighton has Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome, a rare chromosomal disorder that’s left her needing full-time care. She has hearing and vision impairment, seizures, heart and kidney problems and more.
The syndrome’s effects on their daughter have also left them financially fragile.
“I used to get anxiety just opening the mail because I was scared of what would come or what bill would come or what denial would come,” Maria said through tears.
Even with health insurance, the family says they spend up to $15,000 each year out of pocket for Brighton’s care. That’s more than 30 percent of their annual income.
Because Jake, an Army veteran, makes about $40,000 a year, the family doesn’t qualify for Medicaid. And while there is state assistance available, there are tens of thousands of people on the waiting lists. Some have been waiting up to 14 years. On one list, Brighton is number 59,979, the family says.
So the Greys are considering something extreme in order to afford their child’s care.
“It would just be to get a divorce. It would be to not be together to get our child what we need,” Maria said.
More: Kids wrongly denied care under Kentucky’s Medicaid cuts, dentists say
More: $47,000 air ambulance bill for their child shocks family; the insurance company said it would pay $5,000
A divorce, so Maria could on paper become a single, jobless mother of two and qualify for Medicaid.
“We’ve just struggled and struggled with it, and now we’ve gotten to the point, where we feel it’s a real possibility,” Jake said.
“For a family like this, they really are in a tough spot,” said Dr. Thad Miller, a health care policy expert at UNT Health Science Center in Fort Worth. He said the average American spends about $600 on health care a year. We asked him to compare that to what the Greys spend caring for their daughter.
“It’s very high,” he said, calling it “extreme.”
Dr. Miller says he’s never known a family to get a divorce because of circumstances like these. But he believes there are many, many other families in this very same position, especially considering the numbers of people on the assistance waiting lists.
“It’s just shocking, and I really think it speaks to our need to really rethink what we do and how especially for the most vulnerable,” Dr. Miller said.
“For someone to kind of make you choose between your marriage and your child is just—it’s just a really weird spot to be in,” Jake said.
But they fear they have no choice.
“It’s morally wrong I feel like, and I think it’s conflicting for me too, because I feel like what’s happening to us is morally wrong,” Jake said. End quote
This does not happen in the other wealthy democracies.
LikeLike
In 2008 after he was elected, President Obama said elections have consequences… too bad his party didn’t take action the way the GOP has done since Trump got elected…
LikeLike
The richest 0.1% expanded their plot to pack the courts, by establishing chapters of the Federalist Society on college campuses. Some state legislatures have allocated public funding to the Federalist Society’s activities, similar to state funding for ALEC.
College administrators, who lack consciences are exposed in, “The Federalist Society’s Takeover of the George Mason University Public Law School”- written and posted online by UnKochMyCampus.org
Not surprisingly, a judge recently rendered a decision that the public would not have access to the “private university foundation” papers that would show who and how the university was steered to the political right.
LikeLike