Posted on 08/26/2024 7:09:12 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Democrats have made clear that if they win the presidency and Congress in November, they will attempt to take over the Supreme Court as well. Shortly after ending his re-election campaign, President Biden put forth a package of high-court “reforms,” including term limits and a “binding” ethics code designed to infringe on judicial authority. Kamala Harris quickly signed on, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has made clear that bringing the justices to heel is a top priority.
That increasingly muscular exercises of executive power have accompanied the left’s ascendance in the Democratic Party coalition is no coincidence. The legislative process entails compromise and moderation, which typically cuts against radical goals. That was the lesson self-styled progressives took from ObamaCare, which they’ve never stopped faulting for failing to establish a government medical-insurance provider to compete directly with private ones. Similarly, Congress has always tailored student-loan relief to reward public service and account for genuine need.
Democrats proclaim their devotion to democratic institutions, but their plan for the court is an assault on America’s basic constitutional structure. The Framers envisioned a judiciary operating with independence from influences by the political branches. Democratic “reform” proposals are designed to change the composition of the court or, failing that, to influence the justices by turning up the political heat, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt achieved with his failed 1937 court-packing plan.
Now as then, the court stands between a Democratic administration and its ambitions. The reformers’ beef is precisely that the court is doing its job by enforcing constitutional and statutory constraints on the powers of Congress and the executive branch.
Roosevelt sought to shrug off limits on the federal government’s reach. What’s hamstrung the Obama and Biden administrations is the separation of powers among the branches.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
This article is probably behind a paywall. You can find the link on RealClearPolitics.com that will allow you to link to, and read the entire article.
Am I correct in thinking they can only make “changes” to the Supreme Court it would require a Constitutional amendment?
Last laugh is his.
Their confidence in revealing all of their evil and destructive intent worries me
Evil has to be evil.
Yes, this is nothing more than red meat to inspire their lunatic base. They know full well they legally can do nothing, still does not mean they won’t pass an unconstitutional law, that would be a bonus for them seeing the supreme court struggle when striking down such a law, they want this level of chaos.
I don’t think there is anything in the Constitution stating how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court or that it has to be a lifetime term.
It depends on what changes they propose.
Changing the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court Justices would require a constitutional amendment.
But adding justices to the Supreme Court, changing the number of seats on the Supreme Court , would only require an act of Congress.
And I think there is a code of ethics that lower court federal judges are held to. If they want to extend that code of ethics to the Supreme Court I don’t know if that requires legislation, or perhaps action on the part of the court itself to set up ethical standards.
But I don’t think a code of ethics would require a constitutional amendment.
What a last voluntary act looks like as they hang from a lamp post by their ankles.
They will attempt to take over the Supreme Court
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman, two Jews who probably find the Mosaic laws a pain in the arse.
Just hit the speed reader in the address bar.
I states the appointment is a lifetime. Please read the constitution.
Article Three, Section 1 Justices “shall hold their offices during good behavior”, which is understood to mean that they may serve for the remainder of their lives, until death; the only way justices can be removed from office is by Congress via the impeachment process but that ha snot been tested.
Harris and Walz are pure communist tyrants trying to hide their core evil. Tim Walz speaks fluent Mandarin and spent a lot of time in China. He was seriously hanging out in Beijing during the Tiananmen Massacre. He is a absolute fan-boy of Mao. These are VERY dangerous people.
Let’s remember these proposals were triggered by liberal anger over the Dobbs decision.
Their reaction to the court issuing a decision they dislike, is to make changes to the court ,so that court in the future will issue rulings that the Liberals agree with.
Yes but it would still take impeachment to get rid of a judge should some code of ethics be “violated” according to the flexible goalposts thinking of the democrat party!
Schumer is freaking out that he won’t have power any longer
He’s done
The Dems want a Constitutional crisis. The question is why? What is their endgame?
This has been Progressive policy and goal since about 1900. They do not believe there should be any restraint on governmental power. Instead, the believe any constraint on government power is evil.
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.