The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Court Packing

There are reasons that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris refuse to take a position on "packing" the Supreme Court. 

On the one hand, they know that the majority of Americans oppose court packing. It's a classic example of changing the rules to gain partisan advantage and most Americans don't like that a bit. On the other hand, Biden and Harris fear their hard-left base, and will do their bidding. Better to remain silent—a cowardly position no doubt, but workable when the media is on your side and refuses to press the issue. Enbarrasdsed (I guess) and under pressdure, Joe now says he's "not a fan" of court packing, but then again, I'm "not a fan" of hockey but that doesn't mean I won't go to a game.

And please spare me the semantics currently be deployed by the Dems and their smear shop operatives to confuse the issue. Filling court vacancies at any level is NOT "court packing"—demanding additional justices of the Supreme Court to gain a partisan advantage is. Of course, the Democrat's trained hamsters in the media leaped to the rescue and renamed "court packing," calling it "depoliticizing" the court. That's exactly the opposite of what it is, but in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Left, that doesn't matter.

Dennis Prager and Tim Groseclose explain why the idea of court packing is so dangerous and is a threat to our enduring idea of three independent branches of government. They write:

[Assume] Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage (or 5-4, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote).

Then, in January, having retained the Democrat-majority House, a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage. Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members. Biden appoints six new liberal justices, handing the left a 9-6 majority -- a 60% advantage.

What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60% conservative advantage? As a bit of algebra shows, to reverse the Democrats' 9-6 advantage, they'd have to expand the Court by 7.5 members. Of course, they can't nominate half a justice, so they'd probably round up to eight. Regardless, the Republicans, to gain a 60% advantage, must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did -- by eight, as opposed to six.

The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60% advantage, meaning that, with each switch in power, they'd have to expand the Court's size by 50%. The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant, number but by a constant percentage. This is what would cause exponential growth. If, for example, one side insisted on a 65% advantage and the other followed suit, they'd have to expand the Court by 86% at each switch in power.

SCOTUS would no longer be a court, but a partisan faux legislative body, beholding to whichever party is in power. It would become a travesty.

Like small children, the Dems have difficulty looking beyond the moment. That's why they [Harry Reid was in change] invoked the "nuclear option" in 2013 and eliminated the filibuster for executive branch and federal judiciary nominations (but not SCOTUS). The Dems thought they'd be in power forever. That didn't happen, and they've been hurt by it. Now, they've decided to do the same thing with court packing—an infantile idea that is as destructive as it is dangerous.

The fact that the Democrats are even considering court packing is a clear indication that they do NOT deserve to lead.


Deroy Murdock makes an interesting proposal:

Republicans from President Trump, to U.S. Senate and House nominees, to GOP state-legislative candidates all should sign what I am calling the "Ginsburg Amendment Pledge" and make noise when they do.

The Ginsburg Amendment would create the 28th Amendment to the Constitution and enshrine a nine-seat U.S. Supreme Court in America’s most sacred civic document. The recently departed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted the high court to maintain its current size.

“Nine seems to be a good number,” Ginsburg told National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg on July 24, 2019. “It’s been that way for a long time.”

Ginsburg added: “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

Ever senator would have to go on the record, before the election, on whether they agree with RBG and want to enshrine a 9-justice SCOTUS or whether they oppose her point of view and leave the door open to court packing. 


And this satire from The Babylon Bee:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—According to anonymous sources, local liberal man Penn Millikers proposed to his girlfriend but has refused to reveal his position on adultery until after the wedding is over.

The staunch Democrat said he wants the woman to marry him but won't reveal his position on adultery until the marriage is finalized.

"Listen, I love you, babe, but you don't deserve to know what I think about adultery until you say 'I do,'" he told her during a romantic dinner just after he proposed. 

"No matter how many times his girlfriend asked, Millikers refused to give a straight answer," said the anonymous source. "He said something like: 'Lookie here, Jill! If I tell you right now whether or not I plan to remain faithful to you, that would become the story! This is just a distraction! I think it's better to just get married first with no prenup. Then I'll tell you what I plan to do.'"

Yep. Just a distraction.