Posted on 09/20/2020 7:50:22 AM PDT by wrrock
You don’t get to decide what is relevant.
What you are advocating for is a communist takeover of government. Whether you like it or not, there is a law above even the Constitution.
For example, let’s say the democrats gained control of the House, Senate and White House and then packed the court. They then pass a law banning all firearms, the right to self defense and declare Christianity unlawful. The newly packed court rules these new laws as Constitutional. What of your strict constructionist view then?
The constitution is not the highest law. There is a law above all human law and it is THAT law that the framers recognized.
“ whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
You might not like it, but there is nothing you can do about it.
The intent of the founders was not for each election to result in more justices to swing the court one way or another. Then again, I don’t think the founders intended for one district court judge to issue blanket proclamations blocking the actions of the executive branch either.
I do not say the people do not have the inherent right to overthrow their government.
In fact, I hold the opposite view.
My commentary and admonishment was on the subject of the existing constitution.
Under that constitution, “court packing” is clearly legal.
How they felt about Supreme Court Packing in the FDR days.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/court-packing-fdr-cartoon.jpg
https://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1930-1939/2-fdr/5-courtpacking/1937sc_09.jpg
https://historymartinez.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/court-packing-bill-cartoon.jpg
https://apushcanvas.pbworks.com/f/1333107248/Yes%20Man.JPG
Why would it be unconstitutional? The size of the Supreme Court has changed several times in history by acts of Congress. I’m not familiar with any successful challenge on constitutional grounds, and the Constitution itself doesn’t specify a size for the Supreme Court.
Dang it. Lol.
District Courts are a creation of the Congress. They have the authority to restrict the District Courts. Only the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution.
To “pack” the court would require a law. Currently, the Supreme Court’s size is fixed at 9 (1 chief justice, 8 associates) by the Judiciary Act of 1869.
This is why FDR’s court-packing scheme didn’t work; no support for changing the law to allow him to nominate 6 new judges.
My guess is that’s why the D’s want to get rid of the filibuster, so they don’t need 60 votes to pass a new Judiciary Act.
The Supreme Court has supervisory control over all of the federal courts and could end nationwide jurisdiction of district court orders. Nothing at all in the Judiciary Act that grants it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
