Posted on 09/23/2020 4:46:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died at the age of 87. Her death immediately initiated a political firestorm in Washington, D.C. -- one that threatens the very integrity of the republic. That's not because, as the media and Democrats would claim, some sort of institutional norm has been violated by a Republican president selecting a replacement for Ginsburg to be voted on by a Republican Senate. It's because 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. Instead, they have seen institutional gridlock as a danger to "getting things done." Former President Woodrow Wilson infamously explained that "Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals," and that, therefore, there ought to be no institutional checks against governmental necessity. Democrats have faithfully carried forward that vision, checked only by political reality -- Wilson unconstitutionally expanded the executive branch; Franklin Roosevelt infamously sought to pack the Supreme Court; Lyndon Johnson radically expanded the size and scope of the federal government; Barack Obama declared that the government itself "is us."
That meant that for the political left, all institutions of government had to be converted into instruments of power or destroyed. The left has done just that with the Supreme Court for generations, viewing it as a repository for transformational change rather than a legal body with a mandate to only interpret honestly the words of the law. With that view of the court threatened by a Republican-appointed majority, Democrats are now panicking.
And they are responding with radical threats to break every check and balance. This week, Democrats openly threatened to destroy the Senate filibuster, a traditional mechanism for restraining bare majorities, most recently used by Democrats themselves to stymie COVID-19 relief funding. They also threatened to add new states to the union, specifically citing federal territories they believe will elect Democrats; and to pack the Supreme Court, reestablishing a Democratic-appointed majority by adding new seats.
These actions aren't merely violative of constitutional principles and the founding philosophy. They are dangerous. Imagine a 55-vote Democratic majority in a 104-seat body, cramming through a gun confiscation measure, greenlit by a 13-member court packed by Democrats. Will red states simply acquiesce to this overt seizure of power, to this absurd rewriting of the constitutional bargain? Why should they?
All of which means that the 2020 presidential race has now become a referendum on the Democrats, not President Donald Trump. Democratic candidate Joe Biden's inherent campaign pledge was a return to stability, not a leap into revolution. But by threatening the institutional architecture, Biden's campaign has become just that. Now Americans will be forced to choose between the vulgarity of Donald Trump -- a vulgarity and boorishness, however off-putting, that has not threatened constitutional rights -- and a vengeful Democratic Party threatening to remold the country from the top down.
Are the Dems doing nothing but talking good games?
“Now Americans will be forced to choose between the vulgarity of Donald Trump...”
Love it! “Vulgarity” and all.
They will have the country in flames for two reasons: the election and the Supreme Court.
I do not regard the filibuster as a Constitutional issue. The Senate makes its own rules, only treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions in cases of impeachment, expulsion of Senators, veto overrides and the XXV Amendment duties require a supermajority.
The destruction of the Senate as originally designed in 1913? THAT was a Constitutional issue, but it was done legally.
I say four reasons. Obama is hearing footsteps and Soros wants it done before he croaks.
Shapiro’s virtue signaling is tiresome. He is (mostly) on the right side but he is endlessly berating President Trump for his boorish tweets. Hey Ben — no one really cares!
It is an a choice between those who love America and those who hate it.Between those who believe in the rule of law and those who rule above the law. Dems what permanent one party rule and they have already siezed it in New York and California.
Imagine the meltdown! Imagine the arguments against it. Imagine the panicked bill-writing against it. He wouldn't even have to do it, the threat would be enough to send the Dems over the edge trying to prevent it.
>>The destruction of the Senate as originally designed in 1913? THAT was a Constitutional issue, but it was done legally.<<
And stupidly. But the USC does not protect us from ourselves (thus the Constitutional Convention provision).
They seem to be pretty damn confident they’re going to win the whole bag of rocks in November or December, or whenever they decide we’re done counting votes.
Although I do believe that they, (the Dems), are going to be in the surprise of their live when President Trump gets back in.
The massive attempt at voter fraud will of course trickle down to Congressional races.
Yes, the Marxists want it all.
I don’t know what “stack the court” means, technically...can someone explain?
I think they know the election is lost. They are really good at gas-lighting making us think that Gropin' Pedo Joe is winning. It is amazing.
Correction: lives.
The court is fixed a nine justices by law. Packing simply means upping the current total of 9 justices to 11 or 13 or some other odd small integer.
When in truth Trump will grab the prize!
Go ahead, stack the court.
When we regain power, we will stack it further.
A large, diluted court is the best thing for this nation.
Two can play at this game.
Are there any ‘adults’ in the Democratic Party who can see the obvious? How big can the US Supreme Court (USSC) be? The building alone would have to be expanded and that is no small expense. The judicial circuits that each Justice ‘controls’ would require adjustment and added staff. Like the “Nuclear Option” that the Dems now bitterly regret, once you expand once, how do you keep the GOP from doing the same later? When does the USSC become a debating society rather than a Court?
Just a few thoughts on how feckless the IDIOTS of the LEFT have become!
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.