Unlike the liberal networks, who this week tried to justify and explain the Democratic power grab to try and pack the Supreme Court, Fox’s Chris Wallace on Friday wasn’t having any of it. He unloaded on the “anti-constitutional,” “bone-headed” move, flatly declaring it’s simply “not going to happen.”
Appearing on America’s Newsroom, Wallace derided, “I don't think there is a chance in the world that the court is going to be expanded from nine members. First of all, Joe Biden was right back in 1983. It is a bone-headed idea.”
Really wanting to be firm, Wallace called on host Dana Perino to “mark this tape” and offered to “eat my hat" if if proven wrong:
Look at Joe Biden. He has appointed a commission and hasn't come out against it, but the commission is not going to report and then it’s not offer recommendations. It’s going to report in six months. So this isn't going to happen. I will -- mark this tape. If by 2022 they increase the size of the court I will come back here and eat my hat.
Later, Wallace speculated on another possible reason for the plan, to intimidate conservative justices. That, too, he dismissed:
There is the argument that's what FDR succeeded in doing when he failed to pack the court back in the 1930s that it intimidated the sitting justices on the court and therefore led to them taking a lighter hand in policing the New Deal. I don't know. I find it very hard to believe that this is going to intimidate Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or -- go on and on, the three Trump justices. I don't think they intimidate very easily. And look, this is an idea that has been roundly discounted not just by the conservatives on the court, by the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg said “nine is a good number.” Breyer said, “You start fiddling with the number of justices on the court –" I don't think it's anti-democratic. I think it's anti-constitutional.
In contrast, NBC’s Today on Thursday tried to justify the power grab. Kasie Hunt explained, “The push from progressives to do it now is an effort to dilute a conservative majority that could shape the law for generations.” On Thursday’s Good Morning America, Rachel Scott echoed, “Progressive Democrats say this is absolutely necessary to restore the balance of the Supreme Court.”
The perspective and point of view of someone like Chris Wallace has sorely been lacking on the networks.
A partial transcript is below. Click “expand” to read more.
America’s Newsroom
4/16/2021
10:03
DANA PERINO: Let's bring in Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace. Was it in the debate you moderated you asked the court packing question? At some point along the way you are asking Joe Biden about it and they haven't answered it for a long time. He starts the commission and now this adds a whole new level to the argument.
CHRIS WALLACE: Good morning, guys. You know, one of the advantages --- you know this, Dana, from having been around Washington a while, is you just get a feeling in your bones is something serious or is it just a political play? I don't think there is a chance in the world that the court is going to be expanded from nine members. First of all, Joe Biden was right back in 1983. It is a bone-headed idea. There are now six justices appointed by Republicans, three by Democrats. They want to add four. It would be 7 to 6 Democrats. Then, when the Republicans come in they would add 2 and be 8-7 Republican and end up with 75 supreme court justices and it loses any credibility. That's one reason I think it is not going to happen. The other is look at Nancy Pelosi yesterday. “I have no intention of bringing the bill to the floor.” Look at Joe Biden. He has appointed a commission and hasn't come out against it but the commission is not going to report and then it’s not offer recommendations. It’s going to report in six months. So this isn't going to happen. I will -- mark this tape. If by 2022 they increase the size of the court I will come back here and eat my hat.
…
WALLACE: There is the argument that's what FDR succeeded in doing when he failed to pack the court back in the 1930s that it intimidated the sitting justices on the court and therefore led to them taking a lighter hand in policing the New Deal. I don't know. I find it very hard to believe that this is going to intimidate Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or -- go on and on, the three Trump justices. I don't think they intimidate very easily. And look, this is an idea that has been roundly discounted not just by the conservatives on the court, by the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg said “nine is a good number.” Breyer said, “You start fiddling with the number of justices on the court –" I don't think it's anti-democratic. I think it's anti-constitutional.
