Posted on 10/13/2020 3:53:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
There are few conclusions that can be drawn from Joe Biden’s refusal to answer whether or not he supports packing the courts other than he’s in favor of it. The Democratic Party’s mouthpieces, as if through backchannels, have suddenly flipped their talking points to the same page – it’s Republicans who’ve packed the courts, it’s Democrats who have to “reform” the system in order to save it. This play is a power grab of Hitlerian proportions.
It started off as a sort of joke, Democrats whining about President Donald Trump getting to appoint a third Justice to the Supreme Court. It was never supposed to be this way, he wasn’t going to win. In fact, Republicans weren’t going to win at all. The country’s shifting demographics were going to guarantee Democrat victories for the foreseeable future.
In 2015, Hillary was so obviously going to win that planning for any other eventuality was stupid. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had no reason to even consider retirement to ensure a liberal took her place. Republicans were done for, no matter who they nominated. But a funny thing happened on the way to absolute power…
The thing about absolute power is those who seek it should never be let anywhere near any of it, and those who were so close to it they could smell it like Joe Biden smells women’s hair will do anything to get it back. Both describe Democrats and everyone knows it.
That’s why Democrats, with the help of their media enablers, are scrambling to redefine what “court packing” means. The public doesn’t take kindly to politicians seeking to ignore norms and rules to ram their agendas down everyone’s throats. Obamacare was so unpopular largely because of how it was passed – rules being thwarted, votes being purchased, arms being twisted nearly off. Adding Justices to the Supreme Court is, correctly, seen as the sort of rule rewriting because you can’t win under the current rules the American people hate, which is why the left is attempting to change the narrative.
The new spin is that it is Republicans who’ve packed the courts, and Democrats must destroy them in order to save them. I realize how stupid that sounds, but it’s what they’re doing.
Liberal Fox News contributor and allegedly a radio talk show host recently tweeted, “a 6-3 conservative court IS packing the court.” Of course, it is not.
Meanwhile, Sam Berger, a vice-president at the left-wing activist group “Center for American Progress,” tweeted out a graphic showing how many more appellate court judges President Trump has appointed than both Presidents Obama and Bush, adding, “Conservative court packing in one chart.” Left unsaid is it was Democrats who nuked the filibuster for nominees back when they controlled the Senate in an attempt to do just that. Voters in 2014 had different ideas as to who should control the Senate and Democrats were forced to live with the changes they made. There’s nothing a leftist hates more than being held to their own standards.
And then there’s reliable liberals and “straight newsman” Dan Rather, still desperately scrambling for the Republican scalp he thought he’d landed with his fake memo on George W. Bush’s National Guard service. He tweeted, “Can we at least recognize that ‘Court Packing’ at all levels of the judiciary has been the Republican playbook for decades? Asking for Merrick Garland.” It seems Merrick Garland is the only person who got over Merrick Garland not being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Any liberal with an IQ larger than their shoe size knows filling vacancies on the federal bench is not “court packing.” Neither is filling more vacancies than anyone else because Democrats changed the rules hoping they could do it.
Leftist Josh Marshall, founder of the radical “Talking Points Memo,” wrote, “For the last decade Republicans have used an escalating mix of aggressive and corrupt means to stack the federal judiciary in order to entrench power they believe they will no longer be able to win in majority elections. If Democrats control the Congress and the White House they must take steps to undo this harm and corruption and the most viable, logical path is to add additional seats to the Supreme Court.” They must burn the village in order to save it, you see.
Former Slate “journalist” who failed up to being a New York Times columnist, Jamelle Bouie took his bite at the apple by saying, “most anti-court expansion arguments depend on pretending not to notice a 40 year conservative effort to make the judiciary a permanent veto point for progressive lawmaking.” If progressives would simply pass constitutional laws, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Of course, the Constitution was written expressly to limit the power of the federal government, which is the antithesis of the type of government progressives want. They could no more embrace constitutional limits on power than a human can breathe water.
These people want power, plain and simple. They want the power to make you do things they like, to forbid you from saying things they don’t, to prevent you from thinking things they deem unacceptable. Where that leads to…we all know.
MSNBC personality Chris Hayes said of conservatives, “The most humane and reasonable way to deal with all these people, if we survive this, is some kind of truth and reconciliation commission.” Leftists have always loved a good purge.
Like I said at the top of this piece, this is a power grab of Hitlerian proportions. If you think the left’s ambitions will be constrained by basic human decency, you might be as crazy as they are.
Honestly, I don’t know why Biden doesn’t just lie about this. I really think it’s weird.
October: “I would never pack the court! That would be crazy!”
January: “Changed my mind.”
What? He has some compunction against lying?
The biggest tragedy in all of this is the fact that the political party of the president should have any bearing whatsoever on how their justice nominee will vote in the future when interpreting the law.
The Law says what it says. There is no Democrat or Republican version of the Constitution.
The fact that we can even predict how a certain Justice will rule based on who appointed them is a travesty.
He is trying to have it both ways.
Some people hate the idea of 5-4 conservative court so much that they would reject Biden if he did not promise to pack it.
I guess what we really need is an Amendment setting the number of SCOTUS judges.
They insist that Pres Trump naming 3 Justices it "too many", when 7 Presidents have successfully appointed 5 or more, and 8 more Presidents have successfully appointed 4.
In reverse order:
Reagan 4 (And Bork got Borked in favor of Kennedy)
Nixon 4
Eisenhower 5
Truman 4
FDR 9, on top of his threat to Pack the Courts
Harding 4
Taft 6 (in just 3 years)
B Harrison 4
Cleveland 4 (two in each of his separate terms)
Grant 5
Lincoln 5
Jackson 7
Madison 4
J Adams 4
Washington 5, after naming the initial 7
This
I give you 0’s 35,000 guillotines
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.