On Thursday, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) decided that she’d weigh in on the issue of a bill introduced by House Democrats that would expand the the Supreme Court from nine members to 13, a move that many legal scholars say is long overdue.
But rather than provide logical arguments against such an expansion, Boebert resorted to jingoism and fear tactics, taking to Twitter and calling the move “political terrorism.”
Packing the Supreme Court is an act of political terrorism.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) April 15, 2021
As HuffPost noted, Boebert doesn’t have a leg to stand on considering recent history regarding the high court:
“Boebert’s comment ignored the fact that Republicans engaged in court packing of their own starting in 2016 when Mitch McConnell refused to consider Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in the run-up to the election.
“McConnell’s rationale at the time was that voters should decide who decides the next justice, but he ignored that in 2020 after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in order to ram through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett while Donald Trump was still president.”
Social media also reminded Boebert that real terrorism looks a lot like what transpired on January 6, when thousands of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, which resulted in the deaths of five people, including a member of the Capitol Police:
So you’re saying you know something about political terrorism? https://t.co/fOCcA4O2mn
— Zack Ford (@ZackFord) April 15, 2021
you literally tweeted out the movements of the speaker of the house during an armed attack on the us capitol https://t.co/gGSvg14NSE
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) April 15, 2021
Now do refusing to vote on Merrick Garland https://t.co/ICbWXrmfXT
— Kyle Orland (@KyleOrl) April 15, 2021
You’re seriously tweeting about terrorism?
What was that you did while terrorists attacked the Capitol & called for the head of Nancy Pelosi?
Oh that’s right-
You tweeted her whereabouts.
So no, Klannie Oakley, you don’t get to weigh in on what qualifies as terrorism.
Have a seat pic.twitter.com/LCDocVGflS
— Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) April 15, 2021
You’re confusing some House Democrats with your ass-buddies who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. There is nothing in the Constitution (read it, ffs) that says the Supreme Court can only have nine members. The number is up to Congress to decide.
— Jim Caputo (@Jim_Caputo) April 16, 2021
Do you understand the history of 9 justices? It was expanded to 9 justices when we had nine appellate districts. We note have 13, thus the increase in justices. Please educate yourself on the history of the Supreme Court. You’re embarrassing yourself and your constituents.
— Jen Lemon (@jeffyz88) April 15, 2021
Were the other 6 times the size of the Court was changed also political terrorism? (Terrorism is by definition political, so that’s redundant, but let’s concentrate on one thing at a time here.)
— Peter O’Connor (@BostonMassMark) April 16, 2021
Featured Image Via Screenshot