Posted on 04/10/2021 8:11:08 AM PDT by BenLurkin
The “less radical” Menshevik Democrats will soon realize the Bolsheviks who run their party will have no use for them either. Follow them to the letter or be cast out!
Isn’t it amazing how the Democrats turn on each other.
It’s not uncommon for an administration to ask a Supreme Court Justice to retire. Biden will or already has asked Breyer to retire.
We can expect his retirement, an appointment and hearings this summer.
You have to give them credit. The Democrats will do anything to acquire and keep power.
Shame the Republicans don’t fight as hard...
“They will not be satisfied until they have control of all three branches of the Federal Government.”
How many branches of government do you want conservatives to control?
Justice Breyer, when they came for you..................
Wouldn’t it be more efficient for liberals to assassinate him and his family?
something tells me he is going to flip them off. LOL
These leftist thugs better be careful. The constant shrieks from the MSM and leftist legal blogosphere for Ginsburg to retire during Obama’s reign actually backfired and made her determined to be the one who would decide when she stepped down. (Didn’t work out exactly as she wanted...) Any encouragement to resign, if done at all, should be conducted behind the scenes. Right now the smart money is on Breyer being gone by Summer, but if the “Retire Breyer” cries become too loud, Breyer may consider it important to put it off a little just to show that no one controls him. And we know how things can work out when things are put off for another day...
"Precedent" or stare decisis underpins a great deal of the legal system. But what if we were to argue that a change in the number of justices would nullify SCOTUS precedent? Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously.
I think a few, well-placed law review articles and public comments on the airways that say, basically, if ANYONE packs the court it effectively changes the opinion building process such that prior opinions are nullified. So sure, Bidet gets a few noobs, but the tide goes in and out...And since a great deal of stupidity in govt rests on dumb leftist legal opinions (Obamacare, Kelo), not to mention the expansion of Leviathan on the basis of the Commerce Clause, with the addition of one justice, it is ALL turned to dust.
Get Col Schlichter to float the idea...maybe a few folks from Legal Insurrection to post about it...watch it gather a head of steam...
Sure, liberal hacks will say "no" but all you need is for the idea to germinate, and for conservatives to suddenly EMBRACE court-packing...
...and the idea will die on the vine.
I believe the Founders screwed up on the Supreme Court.
When they made the appointment lifetime, folks were dying earlier. 70’s or so.
I don’t believe they expected people like RBG to sit there well into their 80’s.
But even so, Roberts is especially corrupt and will last another 30 years or so.
The first thing the left eats is its own.
Won’t change Breyer’s leftism on the bench. It’s his religion over the Constitution. The leftards will put the pressure on him and he will cave because he’s a gelding. I will be glad to eat crow if he proves otherwise.
The Left is not above congratulating Justice Breyer on his beautiful grandkids...and saying a prayer for their safety...to his face.
Justice Breyer: With the all the hoopla and criticism I still think it’s really nice of some Dems to invite me to a late night party in my honor at Fort Marcy Park. I’m looking forward to it. So thoughtful.
I don’t think that argument will be very successful. Should we abandon all SCOTUS precedent from the several periods in U.S. history when the number of justices was other than nine?
LIBERAL ~ JACKASS’S
Make me roll on floor and LOL...
Let’s roll Americans...this nonsense needs to be stopped.
My Thoughts on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Schumer, Biden and Amendment IV:
I believe the Brady Act violates “the right of the people to be secure in their...personal effects, against unreasonable...seizures” and therefore the sponsor of the Act then Representative Charles Schumer and then Senator Joseph R. Biden who voted it into federal law were in Amendment XIV Section 3 “rebellion” against the Constitution of the United States.
I also believe that Charles Schumer and Joseph R. Biden lost their privileges to hold “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state” for their Brady Act related actions(and their notoriously hostile attitudes towards the right of the people to possess and bear guns as envisioned by Amendment II and such possession meant to be “secure” as per Amendment IV).
Since the federal court system has well-established Amendment XIV Section 1 enforcement power, I further believe that the federal court system should be able to decide if and when government officers such as Biden and Schumer have been in Amendment XIV Section 3 “rebellion” against the Constitution of the United States.
“First they came....”
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.