One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is how both view the Constitution.  Conservatives believe that adhering to constitutional principles, if not the letter and spirit of the document, should be the guiding force of government.  Liberals, on the other hand, see the Constitution as an impediment — something to be gotten around.

Keep that difference in mind when you hear what former attorney general Eric Holder had to say about the Supreme Court.

Daily Beast:

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that the next Democratic president should "seriously" consider adding additional seats to the United States Supreme Court should they be elected alongside a Democratic majority in the Senate.

The comments came during a discussion Holder held with the Yale Law National Security Group.  There was no recording of the event and only a snippet of what Holder said was tweeted out publicly.  But a spokesman for Holder confirmed to The Daily Beast that he did embrace the idea of court-packing.

Why court-packing?  It's very simple, really.  The Supreme Court refuses to ignore the Constitution in favor of approving a social justice agenda.  And the best way to get around constitutional restrictions on government power is to create a new liberal majority that will recognize that social justice issues supersede our founding document.

"In response to a question, Attorney General Holder said that given the unfairness, unprecedented obstruction, and disregard of historical precedent by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, when Democrats retake the majority they should consider expanding the Supreme Court to restore adherence to previously accepted norms for judicial nominations," said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush.

Shouldn't the word "Constitution" be in there somewhere?  I think it telling that it isn't.

In truth, this is an extreme case of "do as I say, not as I do":

After Donald Trump won election in 2016, McConnell used a measure previously adopted by Harry Reid to change the rules of the Senate to allow for a simple majority vote for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees.  Subsequently, Trump was able get his two nominees to the Court — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — confirmed with fewer than 60 votes.

So the "nuclear option" was good enough for Harry Reid and the Democrats but not for Donald Trump and the Republicans. 

Democrats are firm believers in the majority — as long as they're it. 

"More and more Democrats are becoming convinced that we cannot resign ourselves to the third branch of government being captive to partisan Republican forces for the next 30 years," said Brian Fallon, executive director of the progressive group Demand Justice.  "Any progressive reforms that a Democratic president would pursue in 2021 would come under threat from the Supreme Court.  Accepting the status quo on this issue is not going to fly and there is becoming a consensus that some type of reform needs to happen."

So it doesn't matter that "progressive reforms" are constitutional or not.  The Supreme Court is a "threat" to uphold constitutional principles and must be neutered.

Franklin Roosevelt tried court-packing during his second term when the Supreme Court ruled time after time that his socialist "New Deal" schemes were unconstitutional.  But the Senate, led by the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, refused to take up the legislation that would have given FDR the power to appoint up to 15 justices.

It's hard to overstate how badly the Constitution would be under assault if a Democratic president were elected in 2020.  I know that there are some Republicans who can't stand Trump but will vote for him to prevent just such a set of circumstances.  Right now, the only thing standing in the Democrats' way is five conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

May they live long and prosper.