Timothy Birdnow

James Carville, the redneck swamp rat who pushes his insane brand of Democratic Bolshevism as Bill Clinton's hatchet man and later a general herpes outbreak on the body politic, is on record as saying that the Democrats will pack the Court when they get power to do so (along with some other dirty tricks to gain unlimited power, like statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.) and so the New York Times is setting the stage for it by making up faux scandals involving SCOTUS to justify "reform". This reform will greatly benefit the Democratic Party, naturally.

(I wonder if Carville's parent's were brother and sister. Maybe Ilhan Omar has that much in common with the elder Carvilles.)

The NY Times, based ENTIRELY on anonymous sources, has it's panties in a bunch over an alleged memo creating a "shadow docket" which is nothing of the sort - it's just that with SCOTUS deliberations being plagued by multiple leaks to the media to benefit the Democrats and hurt the Trump administration John Roberts took prudent steps to plug them and in some cases is having private debates over sensitive issues so as not to alert whoever it is who has been leaking and letting them continue to break the law.

It's not like SCOTUS hasn't always done it this way, just that Roberts has ramped it up a bit.There has always been private debate among Justices.

The comic book paper The New York Times was particularly angry about emergency orders issued without full debate. They gnaw their tongues over this:

This is primarily done when an emergency stay of a lower court ruling is needed and the full SCOTUS debate and docket is impractical. For instance, if a judge should issue an order stating Trump had to stop bombing Iran the President would appeal to SCOTUS and there would likely be a stay on the lower court order without a full debate in SCOTUS because of the pressures of time.

And whose fault is that? The Democrats have been using the courts to block every and any Trump actions whatsoever, and most of them are ridiculous and have been shot down, either by superior courts or by SCOTUS. The Democrats have used the old Cloward-Piven tactic of overloading the system. So how do you "fix" an overloaded system?

Just as Cloward and Piven suggested - you offer a reform that greatly benefits you. As Saul Alinsky said, you must have a constructive alternative.

And that would be...drumroll please...MORE JUSTICES!

Of course more Justices would fix nothing - it would make the Courts less responsive and not more, because it would mean more people to shepherd into line. It would slow things down. But the Democrats could sell this to the public based on the backlog, a backlog they themselves created.

This is how their minds work. Create a liberal "solution" to a problem and when it fails create an even worse "solution" and all the while it benefits them politically.

Obamacare was a prime example. They complained about inefficiency and high prices in medicine so created Obamacare with the intention that it fail so they could get what they REALLY wanted - socialized medicine. Obamacare destroyed most private plans and forced a lot of people onto the exchange (I know; I lost my employer-based care and had to go on Obamacare, which cost me a lot more and limited my services quite a bit). They had created the problem in the first place. Roosevelt raised taxes so high employers started offering healthcare coverage as a way around the tax. Then when this drove the costs up Medicare was introduced which drove the costs up quite a bit more, and Ted Kennedy wrote the bill creating HMO's, a most-hated entity, which drove the cost up. Then their solution was to create Obamacare, which was supposed to act as a stepping stone to true Engsoc style socialized medicine.

It hasn't happened yet but it will. An amazing number of people now believe healthcare under socialized medicine is better than what we have in America and they point to places like Mexico or Cuba or Canada as "proof". When you point out that anyone needing quick treatment comes here to receive it they simply deny that. I've had many arguments about that in recent days on Facebook.

At any rate, this is what they are doing now with SCOTUS; they are delegitimizing it and trying to gum up the works so they can hijack the whole branch of government. They have long understood the power of the judiciary and have employed it as a weapon for generations now. We took SCOTUS away from them only by sheer luck; they want it back, and want to make their control permanent.

If they knew we would have, say, the next three presidents and enough Senators to get those president's nominees through I assure you they would be fighting for the status quo.

As the Red State article points out:

• And in the NYT's world, this is beyond the pale. The paper further claims that Chief Justice Roberts has allowed this use of shadow docket methodology to run amok, firing off emergency rulings instead of going through the court's hallowed deliberative judicial process.

Again, whose fault is that? The Times is mad that SCOTUS used this method to block Obama and Biden and to side with Trump. But they would have anyway if time had permitted. Oh, and who cares about the making of the sausage anyway? How does the public debate impact the outcome? All it is is a way to try to put pressure on the Justices (Amy Coney Barrett in particular comes to mind).

The author if this Redstate article does a fine job, don't get me wrong, but I fear she does not understand there is a plot afoot to justify packing the Court when the Democrats obtain power and this is what the New York Times is working to set the stage for now. They are now looking for scandals - any scandals they can manufacture - to justify major reforms of the Supreme Court. Remember "vacationgate" where they went after Clarence Thomas and others for taking vacations paid for by friends? They tried to use this to push for "ethics reform" which would place an ethical code created BY CONGRESS on the Court, something wildly unconstitutional as the Court is a coequal branch of government and sets it's own rules. This is another "scandal" they have spun from cotton candy, and there will be more until the Demcrats take power and they have the votes to "reform" the Court. (One wonders what will happen if the Court refuses to let them do this; how will Congress and the President force their will on SCOTUS? Will they send U.S. Marshalls or the FBI to arrest John Roberts?)

I would add it's been tried before. On March 9, 1937 President Roosevelt argued in one of his "fireside chats":

He wanted to pack the courts and his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of that same year was the scheme he wanted whereby he would add up to six new Justices. And he would get to do this when a justice over normal retirement age refused to step down.

The bill ultimately failed because members of Roosevelt's own party believed it unconstitutional and would not support it. That won't happen today, with the radicalization of the Donkeys.

This is a plot, make no mistake, and it has a specific goal that would grant absolute power to the Democratic Party.

Hide Comments | Add Comment