(Buttigeig wedding pic)
Posted on 02/25/2019 4:39:35 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Progressive groups are reaching out to 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to support their push to expand the number of Supreme Court justices in order to diminish the current conservative majority.
So far, the drive by the group named ‘Pack the Courts’ is getting two maybes from Democratic presidential contenders and a no from a likely White House hopeful.
“I don’t think we should be laughing at it,” South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat, said last week at an event in Philadelphia.
“Because in some ways it’s no more a shattering of norms than what’s already been done to get the judiciary to where it is today,” added Buttigieg, an Afghanistan War veteran who last month launched a presidential exploratory committee.
Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who’s also launched a presidential exploratory committee, said last month on ‘Pod Save America’ that expanding the court or imposing term limits were “interesting ideas.”
But the move to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court isn't flying with likely White House contender Rep. Eric Swalwell.
“I wouldn’t. I think nine is good number. It’s worked for our country,” the four-term Democratic congressman from California told Fox News on Monday after he headlined ‘Politics and Eggs,” a must stop for White House hopefuls in New Hampshire.
“I don’t want to let these extraordinary times that President Trump has put us in lead us to too many extraordinary remedies,” the former prosecutor explained. “I’d rather see us go back to a country of following the law, having qualified justices, and depending on the systems of government that we already have in place, just making those systems more accountable and work better.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It was before my time, but even when a popular FDR with a Democrat Congress tried to pack the Supreme Court, his attempt was unsuccessful.
And if they succeeded, then you set up a tit for tat situation, in which every time the presidency and Congress change which party is in control, they will keep adding judges to the Supreme Court. Eventually there could be 100 or more on the Supreme Court.
Assassinate current Supreme Court justices ?
Their desire to rule permanently at any cost is unbelievable in its intensity.
You gotta be kidding me. Governor Palin was ridiculed over her "inexperience" even though she was the freaking Governor of the country's largest state, and one that bordered two foreign countries at that.
This Mayor's run is about as funny as his last name. What's next? A town water board clerk running?
If the dems succeed in impeaching President Trump then that will begin the tit for tat there. EVERY time the House control and POTUS are opposite parties tgere will be an impeachment.
Hate this Big Lie.
There are only 3 conservatives on the court, 2 moderates, and 4 feudalist 'Progressives'.
There are no Consititutional liberals on the court presently.
What is this “conservative majority” of which the author writes???
(Buttigeig wedding pic)
And then we’d be Europe with no decision being made without some sort of useless committee.
A liberal activist Supreme Court will be needed to declare constitutional the Democrats’ greater ambition of increasing the number of Senators to represent state populations.
Just what we need for president — a gay Mr. Bean.
Kirsten Gillibrand is a total whore politics-wise. She will say or do ANYTHING to generate any kind of buzz around her otherwise forgettable campaign.
Honestly, all of the women running are Gillibrand with a different haircut and the same high mileage on the odometer.
Gillibrand is but the latest example of why giving women the right to vote was a bad idea.
Commiecrats monkey with our election process, US citizenship, now the courts. What else? Got to be monkeying with taxpayer money in ways we’re never told about. What next? They want to overthrow the govt. They are criminals breaking the law by trying to make it look legal.
Would the GOP even blink???
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” — Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
Note that some constitutional limits on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes, or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a republican form of government.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, union dues paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.” —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
Patriots need to support PDJT in working with the states to repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment can disappear too.
Don’t make fun of Buttigieg, or his “inexperience.” Remember: he can see Elkhart from his house.
“This Mayor’s run is about as funny as his last name. What’s next? A town water board clerk running?”
Yeah, it is a freak show.
You ever play a game with a little child and they constantly change the rules so that they win?
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.
