Posted on 07/10/2018 8:58:26 AM PDT by tcrlaf
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court, and President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace him, is the doomsday scenario liberals feared when Senate Republicans thwarted the appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016: The GOP’s brazen act of democratic sabotage will almost certainly deliver the high court to the far right for a generation. In the years ahead, the court will probably further erode reproductive rights, gay rights and voting rights, ushering in the darkest era in American history since the post-Reconstruction period.
Sounds hysterical, right? After all, Democrats will get their chance at reversing the court’s majority when they get back in power, as early as 2021. Except court appointments don’t work like elections. The remaining conservatives on the court are young — Clarence Thomas is the oldest at 70 — and Trump is insistent on naming young justices. It is possible that a two-term Democratic president could serve from 2021 to 2029 without being able to replace a single Republican-appointed justice.
That grim reality is leading many on the left to contemplate radical ideas, including an idea considered and discarded 80 years ago: court-packing. The idea of court-packing — adding extra justices to the Supreme Court in order to change its ideological makeup — causes most Americans to blanch. But if done right, it would actually offer a crucial avenue for safeguarding American democracy.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Hahahahaha...I’m taking that!
Sounds like a threat to me.
How about a nice necklace in a 175/65R14/XL Michelin, David?...
Of the last 4 democratic appointments, Breyer is the only one that came with credentials at least worthy of the court. The other 3 were fortunate to get out of law school.
Sounds like they got to one like they got to Roberts...
You’ve got that right, I am sick and tired of those that claim democracy is in danger. This is a representative Republic. demoncracy is ‘mob rule’
what is their version of “Democracy”? Do whatever you want without consequences and someone else pays for you mistakes?
It’s up to Congress to determine. The original number was 6
If they bring a knife . . .
Trump, talk radio and the GOP needs to jump all over this.
Just ask the so called “moderates” and “independents” and non votings:
Are they REALLY who you want back in power? Seriously.
No, democrats are in lockstep with each other. See obamacrapcare.
And then when the Republicans get back in, they will pack it again. Until we have a couple hundred justices.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Don't try to tell them we have a Republic. It's a little too deep for them to grasp, and they're too busy trying to inform us, to learn anything.
Actually, all the things they are worried about with the courts have nothing to do with democracy or republican democracy - they are worried about overturning judicial fiat. In other words, the Democrats are against democratic votes - but for Judicial tyranny.
The poor confused Leftist's Pledge:
I do not pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands, one Nation under without God, indivisible, and without liberty and justice for all anyone.
...and so they kneel...
Thanks for the correction. I see that the term is somewhat vague. “Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law notes that the United States exemplifies the varied nature of a democratic republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives. As with many large systems, US governance is incompletely described by any single term.” Wikiipedia. I will, however, defer to your term in the future.
They’re just admitting that, given the chance, they have no problem stacking the court full of ideologues where conservatives aren’t represented. Yet they’re horrified the other side might do the same. This convinces them the other side **MUST** be doing the same.
This is the difference. We actually believe in faithful interpretation of the Constitution. They believe it says what they want it to say. They believe that the “living” Constitution means constant reinterpretation. Wrong, it means it provided a process to amend it.
“If Trump gets to name 7-9 justices, that would be court packing.”
No, that would be luck couple with his constructional preview.
We could also just remove their justices. That would result in a never ending judicial war in Congress. The court could also declare the war unconstitutional.
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.