There is little doubt that the left would pack the Supreme Court if Democrats sweep this year’s elections.

Head honchos in the Democrat party have not made a secret of the plan although presidential candidate Joe Biden remains mum on the subject.

Biden’s handlers know that court packing – increasing the number on the Court to attain the majority of leftist justices necessary to assure that programs designed to turn the United States into a fully socialist state would secure a favorable vote – would not be greeted favorably by a majority of voters.

The proposal goes against the philosophy of recently deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose successor could provide a conservative majority on the high court.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, wrote a column appearing in The Hill, in which he cites Ginsburg’s opposition to court packing, as stated during her confirmation hearing.

Turley said Ginsburg spoke against requiring a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and packing the court with additional members would destroy the rule established on her confirmation hearing.

He wrote:

“The refusal (Biden’s) to stand against the proposal is a fundamental failure of leadership. Rather than confront the most extreme elements of his party, Biden has chosen to remain silent on a major issue in this election,” Turley said, adding:

“The packing scheme would change the Court for the sole purpose of securing an ideological majority. It would create a new and fundamentally flawed Court — a sad reflection of our age of rage.”

When asked about calls to expand the Court, Ginsburg said at her hearing it would destroy the continuity and cohesion of the Court.

She added to NPR last year:

“If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

The greatest insult is that these individuals are using Ginsburg’s death to change the Court in the very ways that she opposed in her life.

The Democrats opposed to the seating of current nominee Amy Coney Barrett on the court aren’t concerned that she meets every requirement for a Supreme Court justice but that she might oppose positions that the left has nurtured for years, such as abortion on demand.

Although another article brandished about by the left claimed that 1,500 of her college classmates opposed Barrett’s appointment, (how many of your classmates’ names can you remember?), every article we have read about Mrs. Barrett has comments from people who know her about her exceptional intellect as well as her deep humility.

John Garvey, the president of the Catholic University of America, had her as a student and wrote a one-sentence recommendation to Justice Antonin Scalia about her: “Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.”

Ginsburg believed it was wrong to demand assurances on how justices will vote.

Turley said he criticized the Ginsburg rule, which is used by nominees to refuse giving more than elusive statements on their judicial philosophy. It has reduced critical confirmation hearings to formulaic exercises with silent nominees and bloviating members of the Senate. Nominees must be able to talk about their judicial philosophy and the basis for individual rights, without demands to hear their positions on pending cases.

“What politicians are advocating today, however, is a direct litmus test. Not only will they vote against a nominee who opposes a particular case, but they will do so for a nominee who does not expressly support a case. Even if a nominee like Barrett has a foundation in the law, it is how she will vote on certain controversial cases instead of her views that will matter.”

Think about other cases where court-packing would destroy citizen’ God-given rights.

• The First Amendment guaranteeing a free press and individual expression of one’s opinion. Note: Communist China (as well as other leftist regimes) often arrests and “disappears” people who express opinions not approved by the party. And there’s this thing about government telling a private business owner who he must serve, even if he morally disagrees with doing it.

• The Second Amendment, which assures citizens of their right to own and bear arms. “How long would American freedoms last if the government had the authority to confiscate your guns?”

Turley concluded:

“Ginsburg articulated her rule because she saw litmus tests as unethical pledges. At the time, Democrats like Howell Heflin praised her position. Today, Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court and seek assurances from nominees on cases like Roe, which are two ideas staunchly opposed by Ginsburg. What is left behind is not principle but raw power, and both the Supreme Court and the country will be the worse for it.”