Democrats to Tear Down the Supreme Court?

0 18

There is no question that the Democrats feel like they have to change everything. Stacking the Supreme Court was attempted by Roosevelt in 1937 and he lost. I have shown that it really does not matter who appoints the justices. Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by Republicans and he upheld Obamacare. The examples are endless. They refused to take the Texas case and committed the country to absolute sheer chaos and did not uphold Trump simply because he was a Republican. I can find no evidence that any justice will always rule based upon who appointed them.

OWEN-Life Tenure for Federal Judges Raises Issues of Senility, Dementia – ProPublica

That said, Eric Holder has brought up three main issues for judicial reform. First, he brings up the issue of age and term limits. He says there should be a limit of three 6 year terms. That should also apply to politicians. Look at who is running the country. Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and even Senator Patrick Leahy, are all 80 or older.  It’s no fund standing before a judge who forgets who you are. In the end, the court of appeals finally took my case away from him fearing he would never release me no matter what. After reassigning the case saying perhaps a “fresh pair of eyes” would help and the other case he had was Frank Quatrone whose case they also took away from him, there is never any possible review of their mental state. Judges were there for life because King Edward I dismissed judges for ruling against him. That risk no longer exists. He says justices should not make the decision when to retire. Justice Ginsberg was trying to hold out for a Democratic president.

Holder wants to dramatically expand the lower courts and he wants to impose a minimum age of 50 to become a federal judge. But he implies that the last time the Supreme Court was expanded to nine was because there were nine circuits. He throws in there that today there are 13 circuits and thus the Democrats should be able to install 4 justices.

There will be judicial tinkering, but the real constitutional crisis remains the Judiciary Act of 1925 which granted the discretion of the justices to hear cases. That is unconstitutional for they swear an oath to defend the constitution but then claim a discretion to do so. You cannot have it both ways. I am NOT bothered by the Democrats appointing four justices to the Supreme Court. I have NEVER seen any evidence that they will vote party lines all the time.

Their whole focus is worried about abortion being outlawed. That is precedent and just because Trump appointed anyone does not mean they would overturn Roe v Wade because it was tied to the right to privacy. Overturn that and they can then do anything to you even under the pretense of COVID.

« 1871 Act making DC a Corporation

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

, Armstrong Economics reports

You might also like
Leave A Reply

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More