March 19, 2019
Democrats Plan to Pack the Courts
Timothy Birdnow
If Camel-brain Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand or Cherokee Lizzy Warren become President they may try to pack the courts to annul the last election.
From Politico:
Nobody ever proposed such a thing when the Left controlled the courts. Why didn't Ronald Reagan try to do this? George W. Bush? For that matter, why hasn't Donald Trump?
The article continues:
But Democrats say that after Republicans blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and other lower court judges during President Barack Obama’s final term only to quickly fill those vacancies once President Donald Trump was in office, the party needs an equally bruising response.
Gillibrand said in an interview that she believes Justice Neil Gorsuch essentially possesses an illegitimate seat after Garland was denied even a committee hearing. The New York Democrat added that the Senate should move swiftly to impose strict ethics rules on the Supreme Court.
"It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,†said Warren (D-Mass.), who mentioned bringing appellate judges onto Supreme Court cases as an option.
End excerpt.
There was simply not a vote on Garland, unlike the things done by Democrats in the past to Republican nominees. Remember Robert Bork? His name is a verb now. Remember his replacement nominee, a fellow named Douglas Ginsburg? He was taken down for smoking pot years before, and shortly thereafter Bill Clinton was elected President, an admitted pot smoker. Remember what was done to Clarence Thomas? The disgrace he was subjected to by the Democrats because they feared a conservative black man, a "runaway slave"? And let us not forget, they started gearing up for Neil Gorsuch, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a rare example of bravery, ended the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Why? Because Harry Reid ended the filibuster for other judges EXCEPT SCOTUS nominees (he was hoping to keep that in place in case they lost the next election). Reid started it, and then the Democrats didn't like it being done to them. And let us not forget the vile, despicable way Brett Kavanaugh was treated. Destroying a man's life with calumny, false witness, is not only vile but a mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
So these witches three are beyond hypocritical.
Perhaps Gillibrant has forgotten the Democrats did the same thing to George W. Bush's judicial nominees? He didn't have it happen with the Supreme Court, but all of his lower court people sat on a shelf as Democrats simply refused to take them up and give them a hearing.
The article continues:
After Trump won the presidency, the GOP quickly filled Scalia's seat with Gorsuch and filled many others that McConnell had kept empty in the run-up to the 2016 elections. The Senate majority leader and the president have confirmed two relatively young justices to the Supreme Court and stocked the federal appeals court with similarly youthful judges who could serve for 30 years or longer.
End excerpt.
And this proves the point. McConnell did NOT move on these nominations awaiting the results of the election. In other words, he wanted to be fair with the Democrats. Had they won he would have given them these judgeships.
The Democrats and the NGO's supporting them are pushing well beyond the limits, and the backlash could be furious. Their desperate craving for power means they will stop at nothing to seize it, at the expense of half of the country who thinks we have gone far enough. I fear these monstrous imbeciles will trigger a full blown civil war if they persist. Are there no statesmen anywhere in the Democratic party?
This is a call for backdoor coup.
Well, maybe Spartacus Booker is more a statesman than most of 'em:
"I’m open to these kind of conversations, but I really caution people about doing things that become a tit for tat throughout history,†Booker said in an interview. "So when the Democrats expand it to 11, 12 judges, when Republicans have it, they expand it to 15 judges.â€
End excerpt.
But, hey, if you pack the courts enough you can suspend those pesky elections!
The article concludes:
It’s not something Democrats want to talk about, but they say it’s unrealistic to abide by old norms when Republicans appear to be playing by a new set of rules.
"It is clearly a controversial, if not radical, proposal to change the length of the terms or the number of justices. But it’s become so political because of Sen. McConnell’s decision to take away the 60-vote requirement that we may reach a point where there is no return,†Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. "I’m not endorsing it at this moment in time, but I’m not going to rule it out.â€
End excerpt.
So Durbin the Turban, sheik of the burning bland, you can dish it out but can't take it, huh? You jerks started this. McConnell may as well have simply closed the GOP if he hadn't responded in kind. And your attempts to turn the courts into legislative bodies is a violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution. And now you want to cheat at the game?
If Camel-brain Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand or Cherokee Lizzy Warren become President they may try to pack the courts to annul the last election.
From Politico:
Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.
The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.
"We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,†Harris (D-Calif.) said. "We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.â€
Expanding the Supreme Court would amount to a historic power play by the next Democratic president and Congress, requiring an intense legislative fight and the abandonment of many judicial and congressional norms
Power for power's sake. The Democrats have spent decades infiltrating the courts, installing radical activists to allow them to move their agenda forward without legislative approval - and to stop the agenda of conservatives from moving back to where America once stood. Now they lost a key election and they are having a collective temper tantrum, and looking for ways to overturn their political loss. Sore losers? You betcha, but very dangerous, tyrannical sore losers.The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.
"We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,†Harris (D-Calif.) said. "We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.â€
Expanding the Supreme Court would amount to a historic power play by the next Democratic president and Congress, requiring an intense legislative fight and the abandonment of many judicial and congressional norms
Nobody ever proposed such a thing when the Left controlled the courts. Why didn't Ronald Reagan try to do this? George W. Bush? For that matter, why hasn't Donald Trump?
The article continues:
But Democrats say that after Republicans blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and other lower court judges during President Barack Obama’s final term only to quickly fill those vacancies once President Donald Trump was in office, the party needs an equally bruising response.
Gillibrand said in an interview that she believes Justice Neil Gorsuch essentially possesses an illegitimate seat after Garland was denied even a committee hearing. The New York Democrat added that the Senate should move swiftly to impose strict ethics rules on the Supreme Court.
"It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,†said Warren (D-Mass.), who mentioned bringing appellate judges onto Supreme Court cases as an option.
End excerpt.
There was simply not a vote on Garland, unlike the things done by Democrats in the past to Republican nominees. Remember Robert Bork? His name is a verb now. Remember his replacement nominee, a fellow named Douglas Ginsburg? He was taken down for smoking pot years before, and shortly thereafter Bill Clinton was elected President, an admitted pot smoker. Remember what was done to Clarence Thomas? The disgrace he was subjected to by the Democrats because they feared a conservative black man, a "runaway slave"? And let us not forget, they started gearing up for Neil Gorsuch, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a rare example of bravery, ended the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Why? Because Harry Reid ended the filibuster for other judges EXCEPT SCOTUS nominees (he was hoping to keep that in place in case they lost the next election). Reid started it, and then the Democrats didn't like it being done to them. And let us not forget the vile, despicable way Brett Kavanaugh was treated. Destroying a man's life with calumny, false witness, is not only vile but a mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
So these witches three are beyond hypocritical.
Perhaps Gillibrant has forgotten the Democrats did the same thing to George W. Bush's judicial nominees? He didn't have it happen with the Supreme Court, but all of his lower court people sat on a shelf as Democrats simply refused to take them up and give them a hearing.
The article continues:
After Trump won the presidency, the GOP quickly filled Scalia's seat with Gorsuch and filled many others that McConnell had kept empty in the run-up to the 2016 elections. The Senate majority leader and the president have confirmed two relatively young justices to the Supreme Court and stocked the federal appeals court with similarly youthful judges who could serve for 30 years or longer.
End excerpt.
And this proves the point. McConnell did NOT move on these nominations awaiting the results of the election. In other words, he wanted to be fair with the Democrats. Had they won he would have given them these judgeships.
The Democrats and the NGO's supporting them are pushing well beyond the limits, and the backlash could be furious. Their desperate craving for power means they will stop at nothing to seize it, at the expense of half of the country who thinks we have gone far enough. I fear these monstrous imbeciles will trigger a full blown civil war if they persist. Are there no statesmen anywhere in the Democratic party?
This is a call for backdoor coup.
Well, maybe Spartacus Booker is more a statesman than most of 'em:
"I’m open to these kind of conversations, but I really caution people about doing things that become a tit for tat throughout history,†Booker said in an interview. "So when the Democrats expand it to 11, 12 judges, when Republicans have it, they expand it to 15 judges.â€
End excerpt.
But, hey, if you pack the courts enough you can suspend those pesky elections!
The article concludes:
It’s not something Democrats want to talk about, but they say it’s unrealistic to abide by old norms when Republicans appear to be playing by a new set of rules.
"It is clearly a controversial, if not radical, proposal to change the length of the terms or the number of justices. But it’s become so political because of Sen. McConnell’s decision to take away the 60-vote requirement that we may reach a point where there is no return,†Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. "I’m not endorsing it at this moment in time, but I’m not going to rule it out.â€
End excerpt.
So Durbin the Turban, sheik of the burning bland, you can dish it out but can't take it, huh? You jerks started this. McConnell may as well have simply closed the GOP if he hadn't responded in kind. And your attempts to turn the courts into legislative bodies is a violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution. And now you want to cheat at the game?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1107 words, total size 8 kb.
25kb generated in CPU 0.0836, elapsed 0.4036 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.3862 seconds, 158 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.3862 seconds, 158 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
