Posted on 04/04/2021 11:16:29 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The experience of Venezuelans under the late President Hugo Chavez offers a cautionary tale to the United States about where packing the Supreme Court can lead.
Last fall, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden refused to answer whether he would support adding justices to the Supreme Court and now has established a commission to review the proposal and other issues concerning judicial reform.
One need look no further than Venezuela’s recent history for the devastating impact on liberty such a move could have.
“In 2004, Chavez’s allies held a majority in Venezuela’s National Assembly (congress), passing a law that increased the number of judges on the Venezuelan Supreme Court from twenty (20) members to thirty-two (32),” First Liberty Institute recounted.
“Those seats were quickly filled with Chavez loyalists. But it wouldn’t be the last time those in power manipulated the Court for political gain.”
After the court was packed, it never issued a ruling against the Chavez regime.
“This hyper-partisan fixing of the Court quickly devastated Venezuela’s constitutional structure. In 2017, the Supreme Court issued a shocking and dystopian ruling stripping the country’s national assembly of its powers, allowing the magistrates to assume legislative duties,” First Liberty explained.
That move came after Venezuelans rejected the socialist party in the 2015 midterms, with opposition parties gaining a two-thirds supermajority in the National Assembly, Fox News reported.
The compliant court allowed freedom of speech to be decimated in Venezuela.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
Unfortunately, today’s Democrats don’t care much about liberty. They are all about control instead. Maybe Biden is old-school enough to resist court-packing. But Harris would do it in a heartbeat.
I watched an old news reel of a Nazi court.
Looked just like ours.
Wooden tables.....guy with a gavel......
Then the judge started screaming at the defendant because he wasn’t being a good nazi.
Just like our courts.
Cautionary tale? Thiis sounds like a dream scheme for the Democrats.
Most of the judges are stooges anyway. They get the results they want. Why add more of them?
They may try this, but the public reaction will be catastrophic for them. Also, don’t forget, the supremes will have the final say, and buoyed by public sentiment, will bar it.
With the Roberts court, I question if they even need to pack it.
> Also, don’t forget, the supremes will have the final say, and buoyed by public sentiment, will bar it. <
The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the number of Supreme Court justices (a poor idea by the Founders, IMO). So if Congress wants, say, 15 justices - and the President signs the bill - then 15 justices it shall be. The current Supreme Court cannot stop this.
Democrats are incapable of seeing what a past practice has done. They ALWAYS think it was just done wrong and they can do it the right way.
They don’t think any further than stuffing their pockets as fast as they can.
.
This guy;
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/roland-freisler-hitlers-screaming-nazi-judge.html
If he was the only person killed by allied bombing, then it was all worth it.
They could potentially say that the increase would convert the court into a rubber-stamp for Congress, contrary to the concept of the “Balance of Powers”, and thus unconstitutional.
But I’m not holding my breath on that.
Most of the Democrat leadership sees the loss of freedom in Venezuela as a much-desired goal to impose here, and not as a cautionary example of a mistake to avoid.
Rd later.
Oh Sh!ftt.
Okay, well what if they say "Congress set the number of justices for the court; it's a done deal and you can't change your mind."
I'm hoping that basic human nature comes into play; nobody voluntarily surrenders their power. Even the liberals are going to resent their influence diluted.
Ultimately they hold the keys to the clubhouse, and you know, the Constitution is a living, breathing document.
I"m grasping at straws here.
Oh Sh!ftt.
Okay, well what if they say "Congress set the number of justices for the court; it's a done deal and you can't change your mind."
I'm hoping that basic human nature comes into play; nobody voluntarily surrenders their power. Even the liberals are going to resent their influence diluted.
Ultimately they hold the keys to the clubhouse, and you know, the Constitution is a living, breathing document.
I"m grasping at straws here.
> Okay, well what if they say “Congress set the number of justices for the court; it’s a done deal and you can’t change your mind.” <
That’s possible. But you’re changing something specified in the Constitution. So you’d have to make your idea a Constitutional amendment. And then 3/4 of the states would have to agree. Very difficult!
By the way, here’s an article about how Congress has previously changed the number of Supreme Court justices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Size_of_the_court
Had the Venezuelan people not been disarmed the current government would have been already evicted.
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.