Posted on 03/20/2019 10:27:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
We've recently reported on the Democrats' intentions of trying to expand the Supreme Court in hopes of getting revenge on Mitch McConnell. The Senate Majority Leader blocked President Obama nominee Merrick Garland, who he intended to replace the late Antonin Scalia. McConnell kept the seat open for President Trump to appoint a more conservative individual. And then another after that. With the Court now clearly skewed to the right, progressives have begun to seriously consider upending the norm.
"Given the Merrick Garland situation, the question of legitimacy is one that I think we should actually talk about," Holder said earlier this month. "We should be talking even about expanding the number of people who serve on the Supreme Court, if there is a Democratic President and a Congress that might be willing to do that.”
As Guy has noted, McConnell's Garland strategy was hardly unprecedented.
Yet, at least two people vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, have voiced support for the plan.
Republicans plan to fight back. Legislators from both the House and the Senate are prepared to present an amendment to keep the Supreme Court status quo.
"This Thursday, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment that would limit the number of Supreme Court justices to 9 - the number of seats since 1869," Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) noted on Tuesday. "The Supreme Court must remain a fair and impartial branch of government not beholden to party. Schemes to pack the court are dangerous to the Founders' vision of an independent judiciary that serves as a check on both the Executive and Legislative branches of government."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) explained in a Fox News op-ed why he's leading the charge in the Senate.
"Court packing is quickly becoming a litmus test for 2020 Democratic candidates as this ugly, winner-take-all rhetoric gains prominence in progressive circles," he regrets.
To prevent the delegitimizing of the Supreme Court, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to keep the number of seats at nine. There is nothing magical about the number nine. It is not inherently right just because the number of seats on the Supreme Court remains unchanged since 1869. But there is something inherently good and important about preventing the further destabilization of essential institutions.
The Supreme Court as of late has made progressives worry. Just on Tuesday, the justices overturned a a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, granting the Department of Homeland Security legal authority to detain illegal immigrants after they have been through a court hearing.
And Democrats have never used or abused Parliamentary procedures? Hardly a right wing court. Roberts may as well just put on his D sweater.
A supermajority would be nice if they passed a series of constitutional amendments including:
- protecting the vote in federal elections (US citizens only, resident requirements, clearing the voter rolls, ID to vote, etc)
- protecting the 2nd amendment by prohibiting states from enacting more restrictive gun laws than the Congress (no magazine restrictions, state registries, etc)
- universal reciprocity
- altering the tax law to a representative apportionment of taxes (a per senator and per representative tax on each state, states tax to pay their portion of the tax bill)
- protect the electoral college by adopting the district system. The winner of each district by majority gets that electoral vote. One of the state electoral votes goes to the winner of the most districts, one goes to the winner of the most votes in the state.
I can think of more but that would be a good start.
Call an Article V convention and bypass congress.
Actually, I'd say it's now about neutral, maybe a bit conservative. It was clearly skewed left before.
To expand it will require passage in both Houses plus a signature from the President.
Why stop at a few? Nominate 526 new justices and it’ll rival the 535 congress critters. It’s kinda heading in that direction anyway with the courts.
The Democrats would then try to expand it to 35. :)
I don’t believe anything Eric the Red says.
One thing that worries me is that so many people, conservative or otherwise, seem to believe that a court ruling determines whether a law is in accordance with the constitution or not. Actually a supreme court ruling cannot make an unconstitutional law constitutional, it can only force people to live with the consequences of enforcing an unconstitutional law. As I have told a few people, the court could declare that I am an Eagle but they can’t make me fly.
I have known quite a few who seemed to think that the Obamacare penalty for not buying health care insurance was just fine, I usually respond by asking them then what would be wrong with passing a law requiring everyone to buy one quart of buttermilk per week and making them pay if they refuse. So far I haven’t had one even attempt to answer my question.
What’s not being told is that FDR tried to increase the Justices to 11 and was beat back by the courtsl
This is more idiotic posturing by the Stupid Party.
Obviously, the Constitution is not going to be amended for this purpose.
What they SHOULD have done (now I fear it’s too late) was to back Trump’s play. But no, they had to passively join the Resistance.
And now, they are going to lose everything.
Yes. Sufficient to convince perhaps a quarter of Republicans, who should already know better anyway. Sufficient to convince anyone so deep in perdition that they voted for Clinton? Perhaps not.
“Call an Article V convention and bypass congress.”
An Article V convention WILL produce proposed amendments to ban guns, free speech, etc. Even if they didn’t pass the states by a 3/4 majority, the fact that it would have been done is enough to kill them off in reality.
They’ll also stick in a “right” to health care, a “living wage,” immigration leading to citizenship, etc. Nope, I’m NOT in favor of accelerating our downfall. I’m hoping to preserve enough of what is really the America that the Founders bequeathed to us so that when the average person wakes the F up in a few years, we can fix most of what is wrong. But if you have a Convention, we basically will lose everything in a single shot...and never be able to recover.
The point is to influence those on the fence. Hard-core people on either side of the fence will never change their minds, but they don’t decide elections - the undecideds do, every single time. Let’s educate them as to the ultimate evil that is the Dems and their dreams.
Okay, that sounds like it could work. But better have a backup plan too, just in case.
Hey, here's one that worked in Finland, a little over a hundred years ago:
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.