Posted on 06/01/2021 9:42:35 AM PDT by blam
I have previously criticized Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., for his almost unrivaled advocacy of censorship and speech controls. Blumenthal previously threatened social media companies not to “backslide” in censoring opposing views. Now, Blumenthal is taking up the cudgel of court packing with not so subtle threats to conservative justices that, if they do not vote with their liberal colleagues, the Court may be fundamentally altered.
He is not alone in such reckless and coercive rhetoric.
Blumenthal told The Hill:
“It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles. It’s already driving that movement. Chipping away at Roe v. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”
The statement is reminiscent of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declaring in front of the Supreme Court:
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
Democratic leaders not only have embraced court packing but now openly threaten the Court to vote with the liberal justices or face dire consequences for the Court. The effort seems to be a play for the change in voting on the Court the followed prior threats for court packing in the 1930s. Faced with a conservative majority ruling against his New Deal legislation, Roosevelt called for up to six additional justices, one for every justice older than 70. That was basically the profile of the “four horsemen” blocking his measures.
Like the latest calls, the FDR plan was based on politics rather than principle. When the politics changed, the plan died. FDR dropped his plan as soon as he got what he wanted with a favorable majority. That is why the switch of Justice Owen Roberts in favor of a New Deal case became known as a “switch in time that saved nine.”
The Democrats are pushing to engage in court packing despite polls showing heavy opposition to the move from voters as well as opposition from the justices themselves. Before Ginsburg died, nine nominations had occurred in election years since 1900, and Ginsburg herself said in 2016 that the Senate had to do its “job” and vote on such nominations because “there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” Moreover, Ginsburg also opposed expanding the Court, but she is not being cited by liberals as the reason to doing precisely what she opposed as inimical to the functioning of the Court. Justice Steven Breyer has also denounced the move to pack the court.
None of that matters to Democratic members who know that court packing is popular with the most extreme elements of their party.
Many of us have discussed the expansion of the Supreme Court through the years. Over 20 years ago, I recommended the expansion of the Court to 17 or 19 members. However, that recommendation would occur over many years and would not give advocates the short-term majority that they are seeking. That is the difference between reforming and packing the Court.
It is particularly chilling to see United States senators openly pressuring justices to vote with their side or face severe consequences. Blumenthal went as far as to mention specific cases and the expected rulings. This follows raw demands in the confirmation hearing of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett that she promise to rule on particular cases “correctly” as a condition for her confirmation.
The question is whether the Democrats are overplaying their hand. Recently, a Democratic “dark money” group called Demand Justice, had a billboard truck in Washington the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” The group is calling for open court packing to force a liberal majority. (Demand Justice once employed White House press secretary Jen Psaki as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of its voting projects.) The question is whether Breyer will accommodate such demands from the left or feel conversely that he should remain on the bench to show that such tactics do not influence members.
(snip)
I’d like to see Blumenthal dance the Tyburn Jig.
Five foot rope. Six foot drop.
He should be held in contempt for threatening the court.
threatening a judge used to be illegal
How can he threaten them? He needs to be impeached.
If this court’s activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles we’ll replace them with our own activist majority!
threatening a judge used to be illegal
That was in the real America before the new normal . . MOB FUSTICE.
threatening a judge used to be illegal
That was in the real America before the new normal . . MOB JUSTICE.
The democrats want a puppet court to match their puppet presidency.
To bad he didn’t really serve in Vietnam. Likely, his men would have fragged him.
Danang Dick.
Stolen honor democrap Sinator.
Blumenthal sounds like a real communist nut case. But senators have as much control over justices as Wile E Coyote has over the Roadrunner.
Sounds like a threat.........................
And they’ll likely get it. Roberts and Kav will placate their establishment masters and strike down the state abortion law in a 5-4 decision.
Water the Tree.
“...Senator Blumenthal Warns Conservative Justices Of “Seismic” Changes If They Rule ‘The Wrong Way’...”
Really?
Who ‘warns’ a Supreme Court Justice....or otherwise threatens ANY public official, and walks away without charges ??
Dear God,
PLEASE remove people like this from positions of power and authority by whatever means you see fit.
Please give us our country back and stir up Your people to do what’s right.
While I disagree with the extremists push to pack the Court, I DO agree that judges AND justices should face consequences for their activism. The framers did not imbue the Supreme Court with final and singular authority over what is and what is not constitutional. That is a power the Court arrogated to itself in Marbury v Madison. If the House and the Senate determine a judge or justice has overstepped, judges AND justices should face impeachment and removal for their encroachment into the legislative or the executive realms.
Removing a few dozen judges would go a long way to relieving judges (and justices) of the misapprehension that they can rule by fiat.
Democrats
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.