Posted on 12/17/2021 11:04:27 AM PST by bitt
I don’t come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.
This month, a majority of justices on the United States Supreme Court signaled their willingness to gut one of the court’s most important decisions over the past century, threatening to eliminate Roe v. Wade and a person’s right to choose.
This is not the first time this extremist court has threatened, or outright dismantled, fundamental rights in this country. For years, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority — recently supercharged to 6-3 — has issued decision after decision that veers away from both basic principles of law and widely held public opinion.
With each move, the court shows why it’s important to restore America’s faith in an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law. To do that, I believe it’s time for Congress to yet again use its constitutional authority to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court. I don’t come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
Such a comrade for the cause.
What is actually needed at this point is a constitutional amendment setting the number of Supreme Court justices at 9 so that neither side can game this in the future. Assuming Democrats don't have the votes to do that right now, which they clearly don't, that amendment benefits neither side. It is a bipartisan solution to a problem that potentially could wreck the Supreme Court in the future.
I’m sure the Massachusetts senator has no desire whatsoever to intimidate sitting federal judges deciding an important case.
Guess who gets to decide if a packing of the SCOTUS is Constitutional?
The only way repealing Roe threatens any right to an abortion as if there is indeed significant disagreement about the existence and scope of that right among Americans.
The way I see things, Biden’s Brady bill violates the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable seizures.
I also think Kamala Harris is not a natural-born citizen because she was also born with foreign citizenship.
Maybe nine other opinions should be sought.
Who would sign a court-packing bill if Biden and Harris were deemed ineligible to have taken office by the Supreme Court?
For-a-fee baby murder would be available in about half the states.
Baby murder at other people’s financial expense would be available in about ten states.
They REALLY love killing babies.
And hilarious how this clown laments the COURT is “undermining” democracy. I don’t recall voting for killing babies. I don’t recall getting a vote on court decisions like Obamacare. And isn’t the very definition of democracy “majority rules?” If SCOTUS votes 6 to 3 isn’t that democracy? Oh... And where is abortion protected in the constitution???
You’re probably right, sadly. But at least those states that want to restrict/eliminate it will have that ability.
“I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.”
The idiot Warren refuses to admit (a) Roe was not a “democratic” decision, (b) lacked foundation in the democratically enacted written Constitution, (c) went against the democratic decisions and public opinion in a majority of states at the time. That refusal is nothing less than a refusal to admit Roe was an unfounded radical and extremist decision, setting off decades of national political polarization over whether or not abortion was a federal matter.
What upsets Warren is that democratic processes have been swinging against unrestricted abortion rights so now she wants a new radical court that will intervene against and over the heads of the democratically elected state legislatures and their democratic decisions.
If the “progressives” really wanted abortion as an unrestricted Constitutional process they had the means to work for it from the start. That means was always, and remains, a Constitutional amendment declaring abortion a “right”.
Instead, knowing full well popular consent in 2/3 of the states and a majority in Congress would not pass such an amendment. So they got an extremist Supreme Court to declare, out of thin air, that the Constitution had declared a right that the Constitution in fact never mentioned or implied.
It is Warren and those agreeing with her that represent legal extremists the founders thought they had protected us from.
Vacating Roe v Wade would not be a decision outlawing abortion. Hidden in the erroneous Roe v Wade decision is the erroneous decision that criminal law falls under the purview of federal courts. That’s a lie. It does NOT. Reversing Roe v Wade would send the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs.
Who pays these people to write this crap?
Every single presidential candidate on the Democrat side, simply and thoroughly embraces the destruction of America.
I guess she has given up any pretext of having once been a real lawyer.
It was an opinion piece by Senator Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren.
Republicans never will get in office again if the court is packed with Leftists. If their candidate comes up behind in the count, they will throw out the votes they don't want and the court will rule on their side. Any dirty Dem trick will be condoned by a packed court.
She speak with forked tongue while killing babies.
I can say that, I’m an actual 12% native.
With the high cheekbones, lol!
60,000,000 more welfare bums, voting Democrat! Think of That, Lizzy!
RvW was bad law. Never should have been issued. You argue “my body, my choice” except when it applies to the gov’mt forcing you to take a fave vax.
F**Off.
WARREN:
You dumb female-—THIS COUNTRY IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
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.