Posted on 01/14/2021 8:19:08 AM PST by Kaslin
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.