Democrats Threaten to Burn Down the Republic to Stack the Supreme Court

Democrats have declared that so long as they are unable to replace Ginsburg with an activist left-wing judge willing to use the Constitution to cram down liberal policy prescriptions, they will tear down every barrier to majoritarian tyranny.

The Constitution was specifically constructed to promote gridlock. That's because the Founding Fathers greatly feared majoritarian tyranny -- legalized mob rule by which simple majorities could cram down violations of rights on minorities. To that end, they balanced the House of Representatives, which was popularly elected, and the Senate, which was represented by state and selected by state legislatures. They balanced the legislative branch with the executive and judicial branches. They balanced power between a federal structure and state governments. The founders believed that the greatest protection for individual rights lay in ambition checking ambition at every level.

Progressives have, since the beginning of the 20th century, objected to this philosophy of government.





https://townhall.com/columnists/ben...-republic-to-stack-the-supreme-court-n2576708







The progressive secular left are attempting a coup against the republic. They are waging war against the constitution and checks and balances of power. They are trying to impose their will against us by force and by mob rule. Their tantrum over the recent court opening shows their true colors

 

Is there no limit to the moral depravities and disruptions of the rule of law that the democrats will not sink down to?

 

Well, Constitutionally the Supreme Court has had different numbers of justices - the only constant has been a Chief Justice. The Constitution says
that the Congress sets the size of the court, and it has been as high as 10 and as low as 5.

So, legally speaking, the Congress does have the right to change the number of Justices. I'm against their doing that - but your wailing and
lighting of your hair about rule of law is simply not warranted. If Congress votes to change the number, then, under the Constitution, it is legal to change the number - end of story.

 

So wait. You argue that the Founding Fathers wanted gridlock - so isn't a split Supreme Court part of that gridlock? Giving Trump this appointment
will shift the balance of power to a 6 - 3 majority tyranny - giving Republicans the Senate, The White House AND the Supreme Court. So you are arguing for one thing (balanced power) but talking out the side of your mouth at the same time ...

 

It's the media too:

 

It's not illegal for Congress to change the number of justices on the supreme Court. In fact the Constitution specifically gives them that authority there used to be 10 justices.

to be perfectly honest I don't think Congress or the President should have any say and who is on the supreme Court I believe federal judges should elect their own justices.

and I also think that all justices and federal judges should be required to at least have a law degree or some sort of training in the law before they can take office. The idea is that some person who has no legal training or education can be assigned to a court to oversee the law is moronic

 

They'll need a Constitutional Amendment to do it............Good Luck with that. The last one was added in 1992.

 

A

And it was waiting for ratification since 1791!

 

I don't believe an amendment is necessary. Nothing in the Constitution says that.

 

The democrats at one point during Obama’s tenure owned the senate, the house, the presidency and the SCOTUS.

was that a problem?

 

There should be an independent commission to evaluate judicial candidates. For example ten justices were appointed (life time appointments) this Congressional cycle that the ABA opposed due to the candidates lack of experience and expertise to sit on the bench. You know, people that have never practiced law and/ or recently graduated from law school—-never been in a court room.

The process has gotten too political. An independent commission should clear a pool of qualified candidates for Congress. We should at least get candidates with a basic level of competence.

Plus, I believe they should be subject to a rigid psychological examination to determine whether they have the emotional maturity to serve: knowledge, experience, and temperament.

If a candidate doesn’t possess the three they shouldn’t be seated. Unfortunately, our representatives have demonstrated they don’t take this process seriously.

 

For the Dems, no. For America? Different story.

 

Do you believe a court would agree that the law has the power to order sanity testing SOLELY because you want to seek public office? That you must be crazy if you want the job at all?

 

No.

Their "gridlock" referred to setting up the federal system to be difficult to get all but the most important legislation passed into law.
They sought government thought consensus; if there was no consensus for a piece of legislation, it should not come to pass.

In that, they did not provide a role for the supreme court, as judicial review was not a power directly granted to same.

 

Real life, with how insane the Democrats have become, is like living an episode from Black Mirror, it's surreal. Schumer saying he will basically burn the US Constitutions and basically destroy 244 years of our nation, all because he wants power for the Democratic Party.

 

TERM LIMITS FOR ALL SUPREME COURT JUDGES!!!! NOW!!!