BRETT: What is the purpose of this exercise that’s happening with this court packing conversation? It’s about redefining society, right? We can redefine the court, we can redefine the family, we can redefine… Heck, did you hear yesterday, Nadler and Jones and Hank Johnson and Ed Markey saying that the Roberts Court is this right-wing machine?

Are you kidding me? He protected… (laughs) He protected Obamacare on the slimmest of margins and redefined marriage. Tell me again about this right-wing court. Look, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in looking at this court packing situation, said this about the Supreme Court.

GINSBURG: Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court.

BRETT: It was a bad idea. In fact, his party was irate about that decision. Here’s what Rush had to say about the Democrats redefining the packing of the court.

RUSH: Dick Durbin and a number of other Democrats are out saying that Joe Biden’s not talking about “packing the court.” It’s the Republicans “packing the court.” You know what they say is packing the court? Packing the court is filling openings with your people! That’s not what packing the court is! They’re literally trying to make the case that Republicans ought to be appointing…

Like if Ruth “Buzzi” Ginsburg was a Democrat, then Trump should nominate a Democrat. And if he doesn’t — if he nominates a conservative like Amy Coney Barrett — then he’s packing the court. That’s not what packing the court means. They better not get away with this. That would require genuine ignorance and stupidity on the part of the American people.

Packing the court means adding seats to it that don’t exist. The Supreme Court now has nine seats. Democrats want to add four, making the Supreme Court a 13-justice body. That’s packing the court. They’re literally out trying to say the other. They’re trying to make the case that packing the court is simply filling every opening with someone from your party.

BRETT: What’s incredible about this is, you know, 13 is an interesting number on a lot of different levels. But the idea that you’re gonna come in… Just think about this from a structural standpoint. Say they were able to get rid of the filibuster, which is the first step, right? They first have to get rid of the filibuster. Unlikely, but let’s just follow the possibility here.

First, they want to get rid of the filibuster.

Then they proceed to expanding the court, right? They say, “We’re gonna add four justices.” Think of the circus that a traditional Supreme Court confirmation hearing looks like. I mean, the last one we saw with Amy Coney Barrett was unusual because of the pandemic. You didn’t have the people standing up and screeching and screaming and throwing pits during the hearings, ’cause you didn’t have people in the hearing room.

Think back to Brett Kavanaugh. Think back to Clarence Thomas. Think back to Bork, who was Borked. But you think about that under a conventional set of circumstances. Now imagine trying to load four justices up on the court at the same time. Nancy Pelosi understands what a fool’s errand this is. It’s why, when she was asked yesterday, she said directly, “I’m over here trying to do infrastructure and stuff and you guys are talking about this.”

She can’t control Jerry Nadler. She can’t control Jerry Nadler or Hank Johnson. She can’t control the newest member of the Congress there, Mondaire Jones from New York. She can’t control any of this, and she’s gotta be going out of her mind realizing the monster she has created.

You would now have majority leader Mitch McConnell. You know, Biden is facing a tremendous uphill fight here, and he’s got these people running around talking about court packing. You want to have 13 justices? That means you get four confirmations happening — and by getting rid of the filibuster, guess what you’ve set up for the future? Four more justices from the Republicans.

It just escalates and it becomes… As many smart scholars have said, it just becomes a proliferated situation where you’ve got a mess on your hands. Thirteen Supreme Court justices? Thirteen is an interesting number. You know what you need 13 for? A coven of witches. Usually, a coven of witches is 13. But this is just absolutely absurd. To think that because you have an election and you’ve got a tied Senate with a tiebreaker in the vice president, you’re gonna go make a run for 13 Supreme Court justices? Please.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BRETT: It’s five. No, no, a union coven is 13. I checked the book. A union coven is 13. But here’s the thing about court packing, to get back to the original issue. The idea of court packing is about trying to assume control over another branch of government by essentially the executive branch. This is what Joe Biden would be trying to do.

It would be accomplished by the legislative body doing this, but it would be handed over to the president. From here on out, if you get rid of that filibuster, the president can direct his party in the Senate to continue to expand the court until it just becomes yet another super legislature, which is a big mistake, a huge mistake.

This is the great failing, by the way, of what you had during the FDR years. It was only during Franklin Roosevelt that, in terms of the culture — the broader American culture — that somehow the Supreme Court became elevated to the most important branch. Like, what’s the most important branch of government? Seriously? What you think the most important branch of government is?

Some people would say the presidency. Some people would say the legislative branch. Others would say the Supreme Court. “You know, the Supreme Court makes the decision. You write a bill, the Supreme Court decides whether or not that’s a legitimate bill and it’s a law that should be followed, and they get to strike it down.” Sure they do.

But, I mean, there’s remedies back the other way. In fact, you know, Mark Levin’s written books about this kind of stuff. But the reality is, when you look at the situation that we’re talking about here, really, which branch is mentioned first in the Constitution? That should answer your question.

But we’ve been conditioned to think the Supreme Court’s the final word on everything. Really what the Supreme Court existed to be was essentially a referee between the states or a referee between the executive and the legislative branch. But instead, you know, the great worshipers of the court — of the unelected black robists — are the people who tell you the Supreme Court’s the most important branch.

It’s nonsense. Nonsense. Rush talked about the filling of vacancies, and he really did a great job clarifying the notion that when Donald Trump was appointing people to the court, it was not “packing the court.” It’s further clarification on this point. Go.

RUSH: I again ran across a story this morning about how Biden is blaming Trump for packing the court. Biden’s actually saying it on the campaign trail. He’s even putting it in ads, that Trump is packing the court. Trump is not packing the court. But remember who we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with mind-numbed robots that are also Democrat voters who have a predisposition to hating Donald Trump.

So if first they hear packing the court, packing the court, packing the court, bad, bad, bad. Packing the court, not good. Packing the court, bad, bad. Then they hear Trump’s doing it. Trump is not packing the court. Trump is filling vacancies on the court. Look, for all of you who are listening to this program, this is a key point. It’s a very simple point.

This is a very simple way that you can make a difference beyond voting by being armed with this. Donald Trump is not packing the court. He is filling vacancies on the court brought about by the retirements or deaths of sitting justices. When Trump finishes, there will be nine justices on the court just as there were before Democrat justices began to either retire or pass away.

Packing the court is what Biden is gonna do, and he won’t admit to it. Packing the court is adding seats to the court from your own party. Packing the court is putting politically sympathetic judges on the court. And after you have succeeded, if you do, in packing the court, then you’re gonna have 13 seats, 13 justices, not nine. That’s what Biden wants to do. It’s not what Trump is doing.

Look, this is why court packing, why Biden’s trying to make such a big deal how Trump is — court packing is so big of an issue because when the Democrats get control, if they win this election, they’re gonna pack the Supreme Court with 13 seats. They’re gonna add four. They’ll do away with all of the limits on the government that are in the Constitution. That’s what a 13-seat court will do. They’ll wipe out the Second Amendment. They’ll wipe out the freedom of speech clause of the first. This is their plan. This is not speculation.

BRETT: Let’s go out on the phones and talk to Dillon who’s right in line with what you just heard from Rush. Dillon from Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Hey, thanks, Brett. Man, mega dittos. It’s great to be on here.

BRETT: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I’ll get to it. I always think about Rush Limbaugh’s mental exercise with the minimum wage, you know, “If 15’s good, why not 25, why not 50?”

BRETT: Right.

CALLER: And in my mind, it probably could be applied here. You know, I mean, if they…? Why not two, you know, but the opposite direction? Why not eight? Why not 12? Why not really go with it?

BRETT: Yeah.

CALLER: I mean —

BRETT: Yeah.

CALLER: And I think that, I mean, obviously, I think there’s an answer you know, could never pass eight. If you’re gonna go, why not swing for the fences?

BRETT: Sure. Okay. So let me ask you one question because it will help me get to the answer for you. Ready?

CALLER: Yeah.

BRETT: If you were to describe America today, if you were to describe America today — you know, 60-40, 50-50, 40-60, whatever you want in terms of the division in politics — what would you say the division in America is today?

CALLER: Oh. Gosh. It’s gotta be knocking on the door 50-50.

BRETT: Okay.

CALLER: You know.

BRETT: Fair point. Right. We could even maybe say, Dillon, it’s 50-50. Maybe we’ll say it’s 52-48, say Democrat, right? ‘Cause you got all these big cities, okay? So we could like… ‘Cause, remember, they want to get rid of the Electoral College which is a whole other conversation. But the reason why they’re saying four, not two, is you nailed it. They’re trying to appear reasonable.

Here’s what they’re saying. They’re saying, “We have a court right now that is 6-3. Right? You got nine justices. Six are, quote, ‘conservatives.’ Three are Democrats or liberal justices.” Okay? So what they’re saying is, “All we want to do is add four to the three so it becomes a 7-6 court, which is really what America is. We’re 7-6, or we’re 55-45 Democrat. Everybody knows we’re more Democrat than Republican as a country!” That’s their thinking. So they think that four is a reasonable argument because the court then goes 7-6. (laughing)

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. I mean, I agree with you a hundred percent.

BRETT: Yeah, it’s crazy.

CALLER: They gotta get something they can pass.

BRETT: They do. They do. So theory gonna try to come off as reasonable in that regard. Dillon, a great call. Have a wonderful weekend and call back again. You’re a spot-on caller, and that’s what this comes down to. That’s what this comes down to. Because you’re gonna have these activists go out — and if you listened to the activists yesterday pressing this case, you didn’t really have like the screaming and the yelling.

Remember when we saw Chuck Schumer yelling on the steps of the Supreme Court about, “You listen to me, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, you’re gonna reap the whirlwind,” and he got kind of in trouble, remember? John Roberts wrote a letter saying basically, “Don’t threaten the justices of the Supreme Court, Chuck. What’s wrong with you?” on this abortion issue.

So they know that that doesn’t sell. What sells is, “It’s so unfair because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris they were already counting the votes, and Donald Trump stole Amy Coney Barrett, and everybody knows that Brett Kavanaugh was. You know what Brett Kavanaugh was! I mean, my gosh, we have to go down that list again.” That’s how they’re selling it.

They’re trying to be really “reasonable,” in air quotes. But they’re not being reasonable. They’re being incredibly unreasonable ’cause they think they can go out there and scoop up four justices. They can’t even secure the Capitol! They can’t even… Like, it’s still discovered in razor wire. How are you going to have hearings?

We’re barely getting to a speech from Joe Biden as president to a joint session of Congress. How are they gonna pull this off? It sounds crazy today, but in five years as they build momentum behind it, it will seem increasingly reasonable, and that’s how they’re gonna ultimately end up selling this story.