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)
Democrats in Congress are mentally ill.
I don’t see the need for liberals to threaten a court which already seems to have a bias for protecting liberal causes and the interests of the Deep State.
“if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles.”
Principles like “Emanations” and “Penumbras”, public “benefit” equals public “use”, The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex . . .
those kinds of principles?
yeah, that’s what I thought.
100%
threatening a judge used to be illegal
***************
Our so-called justice system is now entirely “situational”. What is illegal is subject to fluid interpretations and the ethic background of those involved in a particular matter.
Justice is whatever they want it to be.
“Who ‘warns’ a Supreme Court Justice....or otherwise threatens ANY public official, and walks away without charges ??”
Good question. Who threatened SCOTUS so they refuseded to hear the TX case re the election? Somebody did. Who threatened them to rule against Trump in every case re the election?
Democrats do it all the time.
This guy’s feeling pretty comfortable in his position to make statements like this. There’s never been a real serious challenge to this guy since Linda McMahon ran against him. He needs to be replaced along with his friend Murphy.
The Congress can step in a limit or set the courts jurisdiction. (See Article III Section 2) Something Congress never even attempts to do !
I actually would rather have the court say what is constitutional and what is not. Not have it decided by the political whims of the legislature . Particularly a legislature like the one we have now with a Pelosi & Schumer making most of the decisions.
Schumer threatened the SCOTUS outside the chambers on the steps of the Capitol— a FEDERAL offense.
Where did Blumenthal make these threats? Both should be pursued.
Consequences for Them, these two ultra Leftists. These are Tyrants.
He probably shouldn’t worry with John Roberts guiding the court.
Only after he's partially hung, then drawn, then quartered, and all his little pieces strung up in a line, to do the Tyburn jig in unison.
Don’t YOU try it!!
Not with a communist regime already in power. No back sliding permitted. Witness Castro and Maduro. That is the goal.
Am not so sure. During Tx appeal to SCOTUS Roberts berated three new, conservative justices. Supposedly, he was afraid of riots in the street. Which, to my mind, makes me wonder what country he’d been linving in for previous 8 months. Regadless, his unconstitutional behavior in editting ObamaCare into a tax bill and then not returning it to the House as required by the Constituion left me wondering about his loyalty to the Const. He is a big disaster in waiting.
Is that what Biden meant yesterday when he said “Democracy itself is in peril”?
Bttt
The tree of liberty is parched beyond belief.
“..stir up Your people to do what’s right.”
Guess you are calling the Angels “Your people”. Never thought of them that way. Pretty cool!
“Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct...”
Judicial meddling in violation of state law made the election unlawful.
Judicially-instigated Postal Service meddling in violation of state law made the election unlawful.
Election fraud in violation of state law made the election unlawful.
We have no lawful President because the election was not conducted in a constitutional manner.
The United States legally lacks a President and can’t place a new person on the Supreme Court until early 2025.
Would Joe Biden like a Supreme Court written opinion on this matter?
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.