They’re calling it “reform.”
They’re using rhetoric that either overtly claims the GOP “stole” Supreme Court seats when Donald Trump nominated – and the Senate approved – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to be Justices in the tax-funded final appellate court, or language implying that the court now runs counter to “American Democracy” (their code for collectivist power grabs.)
"’Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump stacked the court,’ tweeted Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), referring to the Senate confirming three Supreme Court justices when Trump was president. ‘It is time to unstack it — expand the court.’"
Which, of course, is such an obvious reversal, one wonders if Schiff persists at it just to annoy people, or if the stuffy, officious liar actually believes his contemptuous fabrications.
Based on the uniform and unrestrained nature of the Democrat push to maintain this insane narrative, the likely answer is that neither Schiff nor his elitist allies believe it, but they want us to believe it, and accept as “reform” their coming move to pack the court.
Kliegman observes that Schiff has an ally in the House, in the form of “Tax The Rich” expensive gown-wearer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), for example, has said it's time to ‘expand the court,’ adding that the Supreme Court ‘has very few checks and balances.’"
AOC’s statement seems oddly timed, almost as if her umbrage is a measure of how the court no longer upholds the centralizing, anti-federalist corruption of the Constitution she and her leftist accomplices adore.
We find similar “situational ethics” emerging from – SHOCKER! – Sen. Liz Warren (D-MA):
"I believe we need to get some confidence back in our court, and that means we need more justices on the United States Supreme Court," said Warren, claiming the high court "lost legitimacy" and calling on President Biden "to make abortion as available as possible with the tools he has."
Because legitimacy clearly is based on whether the court members agree with Warren. We get it, Liz.
But arguably the most insufferable and deranged statements came from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), whose infamy precedes him thanks to climate fearmongering like his 2013 whopper, “The planet is running a fever,” that lacked any believable supportive evidence.
“What other judicial attacks must we endure from this illegitimate Supreme Court majority before we act to EXPAND the Supreme Court, to bring balance to the bench and restore its legitimacy?”
Markey stressed that word, “legitimacy" - which, for Markey, Warren, AOC, Schiff and so many others, is a measure of how closely those justices abide by the leftist, anti-constitutional, pro-centralizing agenda that, for nearly 50 years, inappropriately blocked states from handling the definition of capital murder when it came to the taking of pre-born human lives.
So the emboldened Markey adds:
“Through Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, the Republicans stole two Supreme Court seats.”
Really? Mr. Markey seems to have no problem with the government stealing people’s earnings to pay for what he desires, yet he portrays Trump appointing people to fill naturally-occurring vacancies, and the SENATE APPROVING THEM, as “stealing.”
He went on:
“That is the basis for their ability, on the Court, now, to engage in this radical undermining of set law precedent that has been on the books to protect the American people for a generation.”
And, almost as curious, no reporter at his little PR gathering bothered to ask him how opinions from any court, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, are his fantasy of “set law.”
Here's a primer, for Ed.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the final appellate court for cases that, on appeal, rise through the state courts and then through the federal circuit courts created by Congress under their power to do so, laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
As such, when the SCOTUS judges “strike down” a statute, they technically aren’t making law, and the particular statute actually still exists.
All the SCOTUS move means is that, in the future, the particular statute, and, likely ones similar to it in other states, would see future challenges going back to the Supreme Court as populated, and the court likely would judge in the same manner, making it a practical non-starter for prosecutors on the state and local level.
For example, if a state prosecuted a man for performing an abortion, and he appealed to the SCOTUS and the majority found in his favor, states with pro-life statutes likely would stop prosecuting people under those laws because, on appeal, they would reach the same justices, making the prosecutorial efforts fruitless.
But, and this is very important, that block only stands if the state-level politicians don’t embrace nullification, a principle that Thomas Jefferson and many others understood was integral to the functioning of the Constitutional Republic.
Just as all federal politicians, bureaucrats, and judges swear oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, so, too, do state and local politicians and bureaucrats.
As a result, if the SCOTUS or any other federal branch issues some kind of edict or ruling that runs counter to the U.S. Constitution (say, for example, federalizing abortion and stopping state arrests for it), the state and local politicians and government workers have sworn duties to not abide by the unconstitutional federal diktats.
At every level, government workers, and citizens, are supposed to nullify, just as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, in 1798, exposing the Alien and Sedition Acts as unenforceable if the states did the right thing and did not abide.
The decisions, commands, and “opinions” of the federal level politicians are not supposed to dictate the minds or morals of the supposedly free people in each state. Jefferson was a standout proponent of this well-understood principle, and people like Markey would rather not have you reminded of this American fact.
Likewise, he might not want you to know the real definition of court-packing, which can be summed up when looking at a truly venal attempt to really pack the court, plotted by FDR in order to see his constitution-defying “Labor Department” and “Social Security” insults upheld.
“On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.”
How odd. An untrustworthy politician like FDR, working to undermine the very document that created his seat.
No wonder Dems love him.
“During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government. Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70. If a justice refused to retire, an ‘assistant’ with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called ‘court-packing’ plan.”
Well, what d’ya know? COURT-PACKING.
And what happened?
“In April, however, before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted. Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.”
And those judges repeatedly voted to undermine the US Constitution they swore to uphold.
Let’s be clear. The Antifederalists warned about the consolidation of power and the Supreme Court becoming the so-called “final arbiter” on the Constitution. And the U.S. Constitution does not say how many judges must sit on the Supreme Court.
But it does say what powers are reserved to the feds, and it lays out strict prohibitions against the feds infringing on numerous rights – like the right to self-defense with a firearm.
Mr. Markey has never shown the faintest interest in individual rights. He is interested in power, calling it "reform."
We can do future generations a service by exposing his – and all of his ilk’s – lack of honesty, and calling for a return to truth.
We have the power. We just need to exercise it.
Follow MRCTV on Twitter!
WH Spox: Americans Must Endure High Gas Prices to Preserve 'The Future of the Liberal World Order' https://t.co/qOSru3U26T— MRCTV (@mrctv) July 5, 2022