Posted on 01/14/2021 8:19:08 AM PST by Kaslin
The United States Supreme Court isn't merely one of America's most important institutions, it is also one of the most important elements of our constitutional system of checks and balances, not to mention the gold standard of judicial independence and integrity on the planet. Despite its judicial and governmental prowess, Democrats—more aptly radical Marxists—have made clear their intention to politicize and co-opt the Supreme Court for their own selfish political gain through a strategy known as "court packing."
Democrats' current attempts to abuse the Court are by no means the first of their kind. In fact, Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt raised the specter of increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices nearly 100 years ago in an attempt to appoint a majority of justices who would approve his unconstitutional New Deal programs. Yet even his own Democratic Party, which controlled both chambers of Congress, rejected the idea. The Senate Judiciary Committee, at the time, called it “a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”
Given the unadulterated insanity of 2020, it should come as no surprise that Democrats once again began advocating for packing the Supreme Court.
During the Democratic Presidential primaries the Washington Post listed Kamala Harris as “open to it” on the issue of court packing. Later, during the Vice Presidential debate in October, Harris refused to answer the question. Joe Biden, who's advisers have openly advocated for packing the court, now claims the position that he will appoint a commission to study the idea and other court reforms for 180 days, should he be sworn in as President.
Over the last 12 months, Americans have witnessed unfathomable events. From a sham impeachment trial based on fabricated Clinton campaign opposition research and the incessant leaked ramblings of congressman Adam Schiff, to media and big tech censorship that would make even communist China pleased, to power drunk mayors and governors across the country implementing lockdown orders that have consistently exceeded constitutional boundaries; the unthinkable has become a reality. Now, more than ever, we must maintain a free and impartial judicial branch. The stakes are simply too high to fail.
Elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. For some of us, these are more than just empty words recited ceremonially. In fact, some of us—sadly fewer than anyone would like to admit—actually take this oath seriously, which is why as a newly elected member of the Arizona House of Representatives, my first act was to file House Concurrent Resolution 2002 (HCR2002) declaring the need to protect the integrity and independence of the United States Supreme Court through a constitutional amendment that would permanently set the number of justices at nine.
HCR2002 is already co-sponsored by forty of my fellow state legislators, including the House Speaker and Senate President, along with nearly every other member of majority leadership in Arizona. I’m proud to be joined by so many patriots in demanding that the Supreme Court be protected, but make no mistake Arizona is only the first. I'm aware of more than a dozen states currently working on the introduction of a similar resolution and am hopeful that Arizona's can become a model resolution introduced and passed by nearly every state legislature in the country.
To the Democrat critics, let me assure you, this issue is here to stay. Our entire system of government is based upon functioning checks and balances, and for the last 150 years we have had nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. If at every change of the Presidency and accompanying Congress we added Supreme Court Justices to match the political whims of the day, it would create a debilitating destabilization of our government.
Our nation is in dire need of a return to constitutional certainty and judicial impartiality at the Supreme Court. Simply put, as the nation and our politics becomes more unstable, we need to redouble our resolve to protect the stability and continuity of our highest court.
As if protecting the independence of the court wasn’t reason enough, the disastrous outcome of the Georgia runoff elections for United States Senate should be more than enough to harden the resolve of legislative leaders across America. There has rarely been a more important moment in history for the sovereign states to reclaim their power under our Constitution and boldly make known their desires for the direction of our country.
Arizona's HCR2002, along with the dozens like it that will follow, and the constitutional amendment it calls for will play a significant role in ensuring that the United States Supreme Court continues its legacy as the most revered judicial institution on planet Earth for centuries to come.
The question would be, can they get 37 other states to join them?
The Arizona legislator refused to exercise its Twelfth Amendment power to appoint presidential electors to guard their popular election results and keep the court from being packed. Now, we see this posturing about keeping SCOTUS at nine justices. It’s all a scam to make people think that the Republican Party is now the loyal opposition as opposed to collaborationists. Dont send them any money for this scam.
The number of justices occupying the SCOTUS isn’t outlined in the Constitution. While packing the courts is destructive, I wonder often if we should be chasing amendments for a government founded by some very brilliant men. Anyone know why we don’t have specifications on the composition of SCOTUS? Did the founders have anything to say about this?
Won’t e sending $$, but this is a good bill to support
Nice turn of words, kudos.
Either he won't be sworn it, or alternatively, it won't matter because the "swearing in" is fraudulent.
You know the thought of packing the Supreme Court did not come from the swiftly shrinking brain of Joe Biden or the clueless Kamala. I’d love to know where the idea and the edict came from to push the Biden administration to pack the Court. One of these days we need someone to figure out who is really running the Communist Biden agenda. And I don’t think it’s Obama or Soros. That should be item #1 on our agenda.
Let us all celebrate the Judiciary Act of 1869 - the act that created the current 9 member court.
Moot point. SCOTUS is clearly already sufficiently packed with cowards let the Dems have their way.
They got caught napping - like all the GOP legislatures did. Giuliani’s hearings were a major embarrassment to them, but the damage was already done. Now they are trying to salvage what scraps they can.
They need to fix their voting machines first.
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IF THEY DO NOT DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!
They don’t have to expand the court, all they have to do is institute a term limit of 10 years — instantly Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are off the court and the Dems can appoint replacements that make the court far left for a minimum of 10 years.
[[The United States Supreme Court isn’t merely one of America’s most important institutions, it is also one of the most important elements of our constitutional system of checks and balances]]
How so? They are scared out of their minds over b,m and antifa, so much so that they wouldn’t even stand up for election integrity and allowed a racist a gry bitter man to steal this election from its rightful owner.
Our Supreme Court failed to uphold the co situation, and failed to protect our nation from a rogue corrupt government.
Will Biden officially change his name to Joe Fraud?
Retroactive term limits would be struck down by that same court. They would also lose some old guy, forgot his name, and Roberts needs to go anyway.
They need to legislate transparent elections and no Dominion Voting System.
It has been set at nine justices since the Civil War.
He should.
Right, but arbitrarily, much like the number of representatives in the House. They just decided “oh, we’ve got enough reps” in the early 20th century, and we’ve been pegged there since. We used to add new representatives every 10 years after the Census.
Patriots must start teaching their children the basics of the Constitution.
First, parents need to teach their children the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, Section 8 of Article I. Military issues aside, federal domestic policy means little more than delivering the mail imo, most federal domestic policy now based on stolen state powers.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”[...] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note that that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government, etc.
Next, regarding the Constitution’s personal privileges / immunities protections, parents must teach their children that the federal government is limited to protecting only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect, not politically correct rights that Democrats and RINOs promise voters to win their votes to stay in power.
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.