Eric Holder Under Fire For Saying Trump Filling Vacancies Is 'Court Packing'

Written By BlabberBuzz | Wednesday, 14 October 2020 01:26

Former Attorney General Eric Holder was slammed Tuesday for calling one of President Trump’s lower court judicial nominations a “court-packing,” as the issue of expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been spoken about in recent days.

“THIS is court packing,” Holder, who worked as attorney general during the Obama administration, tweeted late Monday, referring to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s intention to hold a committee vote on Kathryn Mizelle, a Trump nominee for the U.S. District Judge position for the Middle District of Florida.

Conservative politician Jim DeMint, Commented on the tweet, tweeting; “THIS is willful lying.”

Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whose panel is leading the confirmation hearing this week for Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, published an agenda for a committee executive business conference for Thursday, Oct. 15, where the committee intends to vote on Barrett’s nomination, as well as some other lower court appointments.

COPY OF TWITTER CELEBRATES WITH SUPERMAN COMING OUT PARTY

COPY OF TWITTER CELEBRATES WITH SUPERMAN COMING OUT PARTY

Although, Holder’s tweet was criticized this week, from both reporters and media commentators.

Democrats have threatened to add justices if Barrett, who was tapped to fill the position left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is established ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION CRACKING DOWN ON BIG TECH

BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION CRACKING DOWN ON BIG TECH

The concept of “packing” the court with extra justices – was tried before unsuccessfully by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1937 to force through parts of his New Deal that were ruled unconstitutional by the high court – has bubbled away on the fringes of the party for years.

WATCH: BIDEN SPITS OUT UNITY SPEECH TO A DIVIDED NATION

WATCH: BIDEN SPITS OUT UNITY SPEECH TO A DIVIDED NATION

Democrats are now turning the court-packing accusation around blaming Republicans, saying that their dedication to filling empty judgeships, especially a Supreme Court seat this close to an election, "constitutes court-packing.”

WATCH: CHINESE REFUGEE SAYS BIDEN'S DOJ REMINDS HER OF HOME

WATCH: CHINESE REFUGEE SAYS BIDEN'S DOJ REMINDS HER OF HOME

"The only court-packing that's going on right now is going on with Republicans packing the court now, it's not constitutional what they're doing," former Vice President Joe Biden commented. "The only packing going on is this court that they packed now by the Republicans."

US ENVOY WARNS JUST HOW CLOSE IRAN IS TO BEING NUCLEAR

US ENVOY WARNS JUST HOW CLOSE IRAN IS TO BEING NUCLEAR

Court-packing, even by its usual, more harmful definition, is entirely constitutional. The common definition of court-packing means expanding the Supreme Court to appoint politically-agreeable justices, not what Republicans are doing, which is filling naturally occurring vacancies.

Republicans also completely changed their position since 2016, when they wouldn't consider Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, through an election year. And they are not innocent of attacking the other party of court-packing that isn't court-packing.

"It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, then the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke of Obama nominations to vacant seats on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's