JONATHAN TURLEY: Shapiro could've been a contender, but he caved to the loons
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has finally reached his Terry Malloy moment. In the classic movie "On the Waterfront," the character tells his brother of losing it all; his shot to be a champion and a person of respect: "You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it."
Shapiro decided to deliver his defining moment on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" when he abandoned all principle and decided to join other Democratic establishment leaders in offering up the Supreme Court to the radical left. Shapiro used the common coded reference to court packing, calling for "radical reform of the court." The only "radical" reform being seriously discussed is packing the institution with an immediate liberal majority to reverse a series of recent decisions and to greenlight an equally radical agenda for changes to our political system.
What is so disappointing is that Shapiro truly could have been a contender, an alternative to the cringing, accommodating politicians who are yielding to the demands of the mob. Figures from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg have recently embraced the scheme to show their bona fides to a rising socialist and radical movement in the Democratic Party.
JOSH SHAPIRO READS 'A LITTLE MORE JEWISH' THAN OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, CNN ANCHOR REMARKS
Shapiro could have been different. He could have offered the country moderation and pushed back on the radical elements of his party. Shapiro was reportedly rejected as a vice presidential candidate due to being Jewish and is a member of a party that is careening toward open antisemitism. He could have been that mature voice within his party cautioning restraint before destroying one of our core institutions.
Instead, he chose to just be another bum in American politics.
"I think we need radical reform that’s actually going to ensure that the voices of the people are heard from, that the voices of the people are represented in the three branches of government," Shapiro told MS NOW. "We don’t have that right now."
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR CLAIMS GOP 'STOLE' TWO SCOTUS SEATS IN 2016, 2020, CALLS FOR EXPANSION
The comment echoes the remarks of other court-packers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who insisted the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against "widely held public opinion."
The Supreme Court was never designed to be the "voice of the people." On the contrary, it was meant to be a counter-majoritarian check on the people's impulse. It is that body that is designed to stand against the majority to protect minority interests and to maintain a constitutional system meant to blunt popular impulse.
In my book, "Rage and the Republic," I discuss how the Framers sought to avoid a direct democratic system, which had failed repeatedly in history. These systems (based on channeling public demands) became what Benjamin Rush called a "mobocracy." The Supreme Court is a vital part of preventing our Republic from destroying itself.
TRUMP SUFFERS MAJOR SUPREME COURT DEFEAT AS JUSTICES UPHOLD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
For years, professors and pundits have quietly urged a hostile takeover of the court to remove the barrier to fundamentally changing our system. Now, on the 250th anniversary of our Republic, they are close to getting their way.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans "will never win another election." However, he warned that "the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described." Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, "[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028."
James Carville declared, "If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F--- it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it."
Now Shapiro has joined these ignoble ranks.
Shapiro and others are demanding the radical reforms despite the current court repeatedly ruling against the Trump administration, including most recently on birthright citizenship. Without acknowledging that the decision again showed the court's independence, Shapiro griped, "this case should have taken a nanosecond to decide and it should have been 9-0."
What does that mean? Should the courts not have heard arguments, or should the Supreme Court have issued an immediate ruling from the bench during oral arguments?
Nevertheless, that is enough for Shapiro to toss the court to the mob. It is transparent and frankly pathetic.
Shapiro added that too much power was being given to the executive branch. This is a court that just ruled against the president on issues from citizenship to tariffs. It has drawn sharp rebukes from President Donald Trump for curtailing his powers.
Now Shapiro appears ready to repeat his controversial move against his neighbor and exercise a type of adverse possession against the court. However, he lacks the courage (as do figures like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.) to come out and call it court packing. They simply refer to "radical" changes.
It is part of conditioning voters to the type of structural changes contemplated by the Left to guarantee Republicans "will never win another election." Most voters still oppose court packing. You have to wait until voters are angry enough to take a hammer to a system that remains the oldest, most stable democracy in history.
The court could well fall in the coming years to this mad frenzy, but it will be preceded by the fall of figures like Shapiro. He and his establishment colleagues are deluding themselves into believing that they will be spared in this mobocracy that they are making.
Refusing to have his state participate in the 250th celebration on the Mall and offering up the Supreme Court will not appease an increasingly violent and antisemitic far-left movement.
Despite his own pandering to the mob, the socialists recently chanted "you're next" when they saw Jeffries' image on a screen at a New York victory party.
Yesterday's armchair revolutionaries like Shapiro will soon be treated as today's reactionaries by the very mob that they are trying to enlist. What will be left is a lament of what Shapiro could have been at this moment in our history. As Terry Malloy said, he "coulda had class. [He] coulda been a contender. [He] could've been somebody."