CLAIM: Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Pennsylvania) claimed at a rally for Vice President Kamala Harris that former President Donald Trump “filled” the Supreme Court while in office.
RULING: False. Trump has never “packed” the Supreme Court. Packing it would violate the nine-justice rule that has been in place since 1869. He appointed three justices to fill three vacancies during his term, but the court remained with nine justices when he left office.
Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and running mate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz speak during a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Aug. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Matt Luke)
Shapiro’s false claims Came Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), held their first rally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Shapiro was a finalist for the post before Harris nominated Walz on Tuesday morning.
President Trump came into office with a vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a seat that former President Barack Obama appointed current Attorney General Merrick Garland to fill after Scalia’s death in January 2016. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had already made it clear that he could not fill the vacancy with an Obama-appointed justice due to election season.
“The American people should have a say in selecting their next Supreme Court justice, so this vacancy should not be filled until after we have a new president,” McConnell told CNN. I got it..
According to the outlet, many Republicans at the time pointed out that Joe Biden, as a senator in 1992, had said that “once the political season begins — and it did — any action on a Supreme Court nomination must be postponed until after the election campaign.”
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro campaigned with Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor and presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz (not pictured) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 6, 2024. (Hannah Beyer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
After taking office, Trump appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia. On July 31, 2018, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy left She was appointed to the Supreme Court and eventually replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Finally, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September 2020. Judge Barrett was subsequently confirmed by the Republican-led Senate.
Democrats have warned that they would actually increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court, and the plan would require legislation to add more seats. And break it From the previously existing law place For more than half the nation’s existence, the Supreme Court has been dominated by liberal justices. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, for example, called for adding two more liberal justices to the court at the start of Biden’s term.
WATCH — CNBC’s Ross Sorkin: Business sees Walz’s selection as a sign that Harris will govern more from a “progressive left position”:
In falsely claiming that Trump has “packed” the Supreme Court, Shapiro promoted another lie: that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump’s favor in the presidential immunity case put Trump “above the law” and “outside the law.” The decision did not put Trump “above the law,” it simply clarified that presidential immunity is limited when it comes to criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.
“The Supreme Court has ruled that no one is above the law, but in so doing it has also made clear what protections the Constitution guarantees to the president, as well as members of Congress and federal judges,” said Ken Kurkowski, senior legal contributor at Breitbart News.
“Every provision of the Constitution has immunity,” Krukowski continued. “The speech or debate clause of the Constitution gives lawmakers complete immunity for any action they take in Congress or as an integral part of the legislative process.”
“Similarly, all federal judges enjoy absolute immunity in the performance of their official duties as judges,” he added.
“But the Supreme Court’s decision means that no one is above the law,” Krukowski explained. “If you take bribery as an example, even after this decision, the president can still be prosecuted for bribery, just like a member of Congress can be prosecuted, or a judge can be prosecuted, because the act of accepting money is not a formal act.”
“What the Supreme Court did Trump “The determination of whether the President has immunity for acts of office has been clarified and is no greater or lesser than the other two branches of the federal government,” he concluded.
