"Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time...I’ve heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”

So said Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in an NPR interview on July 24, 2019.

Democrats are now threatening to pack the Court with as many as four more justices; it seems they have no problem going against RBG on this, while using her name as a pretext for doing it.

As reported by NPR, she also dictated a statement to her granddaughter in her last days saying it was her “most fervent wish” that she “not be replaced until a new President is installed.” Ah, but this time, Democrats consider RBG’s wishes sacrosanct.

And they ignore something she’d previously said: “...the President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continue into year four...and that’s how it should be.”

Never mind the confusion created by these very different versions of what she said she wanted, let alone the idea that someone’s deathbed wish should override the Constitution. And what did she mean by “new President”? “New,” as in “different”? Did she mean that if Trump is re-elected, we should hold her seat open till the “new” President takes office in 2025? That sure is a long time to struggle on with a tie-prone 8-member court. Just getting through the next few months that way would be a nightmare, given the inevitable election challenges.

Times sure have changed. As I said on Sean Hannity’s TV show Monday night, it was Sen. Harry Reid who “threw the match in the gas can” in 2013, when he killed the filibuster for judicial appointments. He was told at the time that it would come back to bite, and now it has. Thank God we have a President who won’t be intimidated and will do his duty, and I pray the Senate will do the same. I also wish we had some real journalism going on; then people would know that proceeding with nomination and confirmation of a new justice under these circumstances is constitutional and customary.

Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in NATIONAL REVIEW, makes the same point I did over the weekend --- that what happens now really all comes down to politics. One party will do what it calculates it has the power to do, given the anticipated political fallout.

As McCarthy points out, there was nothing wrong with President Obama nominating Merrick Garland for Supreme Court Justice, just as there was nothing wrong with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority blocking that nomination. It’s all constitutional. The rest –- all the “outrage” –- is pure politics.

McCarthy worries, though, that Republicans’ push to confirm before the election may make it harder for Trump to win against enraged Democrats, as it motivates them even more. I don’t know about that. At the risk of sounding like Chandler Bing from FRIENDS, could Democrats BE more enraged? Republicans could smile and nod and confess to deep-seated racism and capitalist greed and cave to everything the left wanted, no matter how insane and unconstitutional, and they’d still move the goalposts and find more reasons to be enraged. It would never end. Republicans have the opportunity to make this appointment, it’s perfectly constitutional, and they must take advantage of it, just as the Democrats absolutely would. Case closed.

Sen. Lindsay Graham said on Hannity’s show that “we’re gonna move forward in the [Judiciary] committee, we’re gonna report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate, so we can vote before the election. That’s the constitutional process.”

Why so determined? “After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me,” he said. “They’re not gonna intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else...We’re gonna have a process that you’ll be proud of, a nominee who’s gonna be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee, and WE’VE GOT THE VOTES TO CONFIRM THE JUDGE [emphasis mine] on the floor of the Senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming.”

Trump says he'll announce his choice on Friday or Saturday. Senators know it'll be Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who reportedly met with the President on Monday, or one of several other women on his shortlist (which he, unlike Biden, has revealed).

So this is apparently happening. Get ready to hear a lot more threats about packing the Court as “payback” for doing what the Senate absolutely has the constitutional right and, arguably, obligation to do.

REASON has a must-read (cautionary) article that outlines the various power-grabs the Democrats intend to make as soon as they are able. What everyone needs to understand is this: IF THEY GAIN POWER, THEY WILL DO THESE THINGS WHETHER TRUMP WAS ABLE TO GET HIS NOMINEE CONFIRMED OR NOT. For this reason, no matter what else happens, Biden and the Democrat ticket absolutely must not win. I cannot say this strongly enough. If they do, the America we love will be largely over. Republicans have to win in such a landslide that there’s nothing Democrats can do after November 3 to upset the process and the will of the electorate.

Author Josh Blackman agrees with Jeffrey Toobin in the NEW YORKER that these changes are not only good payback but “good policy as well.” He’s all for 1) the complete elimination of the filibuster, 2) statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, with two new senators for each (“an appropriate rejoinder”), 3) adding to the number of lower-court judges, and 4) adding to the number of SCOTUS justices (“the greatest and most appropriate form of retribution”).

"If Republicans succeed in stealing two seats,” he writes (note his choice of the word “stealing”), “the Scalia and Ginsburg vacancies, the Democrats could simply pass a law that creates two or three more seats on the Supreme Court." He likens this to playing a game of hardball.

See how the “game” is rationalized? (Again, they really don’t care what RBG would think of adding seats.) I brought up this article to get you into leftists’ heads and show you what they have planned. Clearly, they intend to do these things whether Trump gets his way on a new justice or not.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-30 of 30

  • Pam

    09/22/2020 01:33 PM

    Fill the position!! Every Republican Senator should back Trump on this!! No time for division....America and we the people depend on it!! Stand united and don’t give in!!

  • Nara Crowley

    09/22/2020 01:09 PM

    The Supreme Court and ALL courts of law are supposed to be non-political. In the past 4 years we have seen decisions based purely on politics.

    We have seen Attorney Generals creating cases purely on politics such as in New York pursuing President Trump’s taxes.

    The Democratic Party made a decision to follow President Obama’s words, “RESIST”. They have created 4 years of chaos.

    The Senate should unequivocally vote for the Supreme Court Justice before the election.

    The Democrats have already stated they plan to go full mode chaos anyway. Our Senate will fail us if they do not vote and support our President’s nominee as soon as possible.

    If a hearing is insisted on, one day is sufficient. They always stall by repeating the same statements and questions.

    The Senate has the opportunity to do what is right, vote for the Supreme Court nominee!

  • Jerry chandler

    09/22/2020 01:07 PM

    Mike. Let your readers know to
    flood Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowskis mail box and voice mail box with urgent messages to support the President by approving his Supreme Court justice candidate. They can even send emails. That info is on their websites.
    Susan Collins phone: 202-224-2523
    Lisa Murkoeski phone: 202-224-6665

  • Dorothy M McReynolds

    09/22/2020 12:54 PM

    IF what Ted Cruz said is correct, and you would know, then please encourage our president to just relay the facts about the past record of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Cruz told ABC that there has been 29 SCOTUS vacancies in an election year with a nomination being made every time. Out of the 29, he said,19 were in a year where the President and Senate was of the same party and 17 were confirmed. The other 10 were, as in 2016, where the President and Senate were opposing parties and only 2 were confirmed. That makes it so evident that this is not a "new thing" rather just one more hissy fit. The reason that I questioned whether these are actual facts is because I cannot verify what Cruz said about Jimmy Carter making a nomination in November, a week after being defeated by Ronald Reagan, and the Democrat Senate confirming it in December. Everything I find says that Carter did not make a nomination for SCOTUS. I haven't checked out the other numbers. I'd love to know if they are correct because I'd like to repeat them if they are.

  • Gary L. Willey

    09/22/2020 12:38 PM

    When Republicans gain control of the Senate again, their first order of business should be to reverse that 'Nuclear Option' and Amend the Constitution in a manner that it can not be changed in the future. There is a very good reason it was set up to require a two thirds majority!

"Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time...I’ve heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”

So said Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in an NPR interview on July 24, 2019.

Democrats are now threatening to pack the Court with as many as four more justices; it seems they have no problem going against RBG on this, while using her name as a pretext for doing it.

As reported by NPR, she also dictated a statement to her granddaughter in her last days saying it was her “most fervent wish” that she “not be replaced until a new President is installed.” Ah, but this time, Democrats consider RBG’s wishes sacrosanct.

And they ignore something she’d previously said: “...the President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continue into year four...and that’s how it should be.”

Never mind the confusion created by these very different versions of what she said she wanted, let alone the idea that someone’s deathbed wish should override the Constitution. And what did she mean by “new President”? “New,” as in “different”? Did she mean that if Trump is re-elected, we should hold her seat open till the “new” President takes office in 2025? That sure is a long time to struggle on with a tie-prone 8-member court. Just getting through the next few months that way would be a nightmare, given the inevitable election challenges.

Times sure have changed. As I said on Sean Hannity’s TV show Monday night, it was Sen. Harry Reid who “threw the match in the gas can” in 2013, when he killed the filibuster for judicial appointments. He was told at the time that it would come back to bite, and now it has. Thank God we have a President who won’t be intimidated and will do his duty, and I pray the Senate will do the same. I also wish we had some real journalism going on; then people would know that proceeding with nomination and confirmation of a new justice under these circumstances is constitutional and customary.

Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in NATIONAL REVIEW, makes the same point I did over the weekend --- that what happens now really all comes down to politics. One party will do what it calculates it has the power to do, given the anticipated political fallout.

As McCarthy points out, there was nothing wrong with President Obama nominating Merrick Garland for Supreme Court Justice, just as there was nothing wrong with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority blocking that nomination. It’s all constitutional. The rest –- all the “outrage” –- is pure politics.

McCarthy worries, though, that Republicans’ push to confirm before the election may make it harder for Trump to win against enraged Democrats, as it motivates them even more. I don’t know about that. At the risk of sounding like Chandler Bing from FRIENDS, could Democrats BE more enraged? Republicans could smile and nod and confess to deep-seated racism and capitalist greed and cave to everything the left wanted, no matter how insane and unconstitutional, and they’d still move the goalposts and find more reasons to be enraged. It would never end. Republicans have the opportunity to make this appointment, it’s perfectly constitutional, and they must take advantage of it, just as the Democrats absolutely would. Case closed.

Sen. Lindsay Graham said on Hannity’s show that “we’re gonna move forward in the [Judiciary] committee, we’re gonna report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate, so we can vote before the election. That’s the constitutional process.”

Why so determined? “After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me,” he said. “They’re not gonna intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else...We’re gonna have a process that you’ll be proud of, a nominee who’s gonna be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee, and WE’VE GOT THE VOTES TO CONFIRM THE JUDGE [emphasis mine] on the floor of the Senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming.”

Trump says he'll announce his choice on Friday or Saturday. Senators know it'll be Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who reportedly met with the President on Monday, or one of several other women on his shortlist (which he, unlike Biden, has revealed).

So this is apparently happening. Get ready to hear a lot more threats about packing the Court as “payback” for doing what the Senate absolutely has the constitutional right and, arguably, obligation to do.

REASON has a must-read (cautionary) article that outlines the various power-grabs the Democrats intend to make as soon as they are able. What everyone needs to understand is this: IF THEY GAIN POWER, THEY WILL DO THESE THINGS WHETHER TRUMP WAS ABLE TO GET HIS NOMINEE CONFIRMED OR NOT. For this reason, no matter what else happens, Biden and the Democrat ticket absolutely must not win. I cannot say this strongly enough. If they do, the America we love will be largely over. Republicans have to win in such a landslide that there’s nothing Democrats can do after November 3 to upset the process and the will of the electorate.

Author Josh Blackman agrees with Jeffrey Toobin in the NEW YORKER that these changes are not only good payback but “good policy as well.” He’s all for 1) the complete elimination of the filibuster, 2) statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, with two new senators for each (“an appropriate rejoinder”), 3) adding to the number of lower-court judges, and 4) adding to the number of SCOTUS justices (“the greatest and most appropriate form of retribution”).

"If Republicans succeed in stealing two seats,” he writes (note his choice of the word “stealing”), “the Scalia and Ginsburg vacancies, the Democrats could simply pass a law that creates two or three more seats on the Supreme Court." He likens this to playing a game of hardball.

See how the “game” is rationalized? (Again, they really don’t care what RBG would think of adding seats.) I brought up this article to get you into leftists’ heads and show you what they have planned. Clearly, they intend to do these things whether Trump gets his way on a new justice or not.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-30 of 30

  • Pam

    09/22/2020 01:33 PM

    Fill the position!! Every Republican Senator should back Trump on this!! No time for division....America and we the people depend on it!! Stand united and don’t give in!!

  • Nara Crowley

    09/22/2020 01:09 PM

    The Supreme Court and ALL courts of law are supposed to be non-political. In the past 4 years we have seen decisions based purely on politics.

    We have seen Attorney Generals creating cases purely on politics such as in New York pursuing President Trump’s taxes.

    The Democratic Party made a decision to follow President Obama’s words, “RESIST”. They have created 4 years of chaos.

    The Senate should unequivocally vote for the Supreme Court Justice before the election.

    The Democrats have already stated they plan to go full mode chaos anyway. Our Senate will fail us if they do not vote and support our President’s nominee as soon as possible.

    If a hearing is insisted on, one day is sufficient. They always stall by repeating the same statements and questions.

    The Senate has the opportunity to do what is right, vote for the Supreme Court nominee!

  • Jerry chandler

    09/22/2020 01:07 PM

    Mike. Let your readers know to
    flood Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowskis mail box and voice mail box with urgent messages to support the President by approving his Supreme Court justice candidate. They can even send emails. That info is on their websites.
    Susan Collins phone: 202-224-2523
    Lisa Murkoeski phone: 202-224-6665

  • Dorothy M McReynolds

    09/22/2020 12:54 PM

    IF what Ted Cruz said is correct, and you would know, then please encourage our president to just relay the facts about the past record of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Cruz told ABC that there has been 29 SCOTUS vacancies in an election year with a nomination being made every time. Out of the 29, he said,19 were in a year where the President and Senate was of the same party and 17 were confirmed. The other 10 were, as in 2016, where the President and Senate were opposing parties and only 2 were confirmed. That makes it so evident that this is not a "new thing" rather just one more hissy fit. The reason that I questioned whether these are actual facts is because I cannot verify what Cruz said about Jimmy Carter making a nomination in November, a week after being defeated by Ronald Reagan, and the Democrat Senate confirming it in December. Everything I find says that Carter did not make a nomination for SCOTUS. I haven't checked out the other numbers. I'd love to know if they are correct because I'd like to repeat them if they are.

  • Gary L. Willey

    09/22/2020 12:38 PM

    When Republicans gain control of the Senate again, their first order of business should be to reverse that 'Nuclear Option' and Amend the Constitution in a manner that it can not be changed in the future. There is a very good reason it was set up to require a two thirds majority!

"Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time...I’ve heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”

So said Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in an NPR interview on July 24, 2019.

Democrats are now threatening to pack the Court with as many as four more justices; it seems they have no problem going against RBG on this, while using her name as a pretext for doing it.

As reported by NPR, she also dictated a statement to her granddaughter in her last days saying it was her “most fervent wish” that she “not be replaced until a new President is installed.” Ah, but this time, Democrats consider RBG’s wishes sacrosanct.

And they ignore something she’d previously said: “...the President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continue into year four...and that’s how it should be.”

Never mind the confusion created by these very different versions of what she said she wanted, let alone the idea that someone’s deathbed wish should override the Constitution. And what did she mean by “new President”? “New,” as in “different”? Did she mean that if Trump is re-elected, we should hold her seat open till the “new” President takes office in 2025? That sure is a long time to struggle on with a tie-prone 8-member court. Just getting through the next few months that way would be a nightmare, given the inevitable election challenges.

Times sure have changed. As I said on Sean Hannity’s TV show Monday night, it was Sen. Harry Reid who “threw the match in the gas can” in 2013, when he killed the filibuster for judicial appointments. He was told at the time that it would come back to bite, and now it has. Thank God we have a President who won’t be intimidated and will do his duty, and I pray the Senate will do the same. I also wish we had some real journalism going on; then people would know that proceeding with nomination and confirmation of a new justice under these circumstances is constitutional and customary.

Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in NATIONAL REVIEW, makes the same point I did over the weekend --- that what happens now really all comes down to politics. One party will do what it calculates it has the power to do, given the anticipated political fallout.

As McCarthy points out, there was nothing wrong with President Obama nominating Merrick Garland for Supreme Court Justice, just as there was nothing wrong with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority blocking that nomination. It’s all constitutional. The rest –- all the “outrage” –- is pure politics.

McCarthy worries, though, that Republicans’ push to confirm before the election may make it harder for Trump to win against enraged Democrats, as it motivates them even more. I don’t know about that. At the risk of sounding like Chandler Bing from FRIENDS, could Democrats BE more enraged? Republicans could smile and nod and confess to deep-seated racism and capitalist greed and cave to everything the left wanted, no matter how insane and unconstitutional, and they’d still move the goalposts and find more reasons to be enraged. It would never end. Republicans have the opportunity to make this appointment, it’s perfectly constitutional, and they must take advantage of it, just as the Democrats absolutely would. Case closed.

Sen. Lindsay Graham said on Hannity’s show that “we’re gonna move forward in the [Judiciary] committee, we’re gonna report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate, so we can vote before the election. That’s the constitutional process.”

Why so determined? “After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me,” he said. “They’re not gonna intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else...We’re gonna have a process that you’ll be proud of, a nominee who’s gonna be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee, and WE’VE GOT THE VOTES TO CONFIRM THE JUDGE [emphasis mine] on the floor of the Senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming.”

Trump says he'll announce his choice on Friday or Saturday. Senators know it'll be Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who reportedly met with the President on Monday, or one of several other women on his shortlist (which he, unlike Biden, has revealed).

So this is apparently happening. Get ready to hear a lot more threats about packing the Court as “payback” for doing what the Senate absolutely has the constitutional right and, arguably, obligation to do.

REASON has a must-read (cautionary) article that outlines the various power-grabs the Democrats intend to make as soon as they are able. What everyone needs to understand is this: IF THEY GAIN POWER, THEY WILL DO THESE THINGS WHETHER TRUMP WAS ABLE TO GET HIS NOMINEE CONFIRMED OR NOT. For this reason, no matter what else happens, Biden and the Democrat ticket absolutely must not win. I cannot say this strongly enough. If they do, the America we love will be largely over. Republicans have to win in such a landslide that there’s nothing Democrats can do after November 3 to upset the process and the will of the electorate.

Author Josh Blackman agrees with Jeffrey Toobin in the NEW YORKER that these changes are not only good payback but “good policy as well.” He’s all for 1) the complete elimination of the filibuster, 2) statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, with two new senators for each (“an appropriate rejoinder”), 3) adding to the number of lower-court judges, and 4) adding to the number of SCOTUS justices (“the greatest and most appropriate form of retribution”).

"If Republicans succeed in stealing two seats,” he writes (note his choice of the word “stealing”), “the Scalia and Ginsburg vacancies, the Democrats could simply pass a law that creates two or three more seats on the Supreme Court." He likens this to playing a game of hardball.

See how the “game” is rationalized? (Again, they really don’t care what RBG would think of adding seats.) I brought up this article to get you into leftists’ heads and show you what they have planned. Clearly, they intend to do these things whether Trump gets his way on a new justice or not.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-30 of 30

  • Pam

    09/22/2020 01:33 PM

    Fill the position!! Every Republican Senator should back Trump on this!! No time for division....America and we the people depend on it!! Stand united and don’t give in!!

  • Nara Crowley

    09/22/2020 01:09 PM

    The Supreme Court and ALL courts of law are supposed to be non-political. In the past 4 years we have seen decisions based purely on politics.

    We have seen Attorney Generals creating cases purely on politics such as in New York pursuing President Trump’s taxes.

    The Democratic Party made a decision to follow President Obama’s words, “RESIST”. They have created 4 years of chaos.

    The Senate should unequivocally vote for the Supreme Court Justice before the election.

    The Democrats have already stated they plan to go full mode chaos anyway. Our Senate will fail us if they do not vote and support our President’s nominee as soon as possible.

    If a hearing is insisted on, one day is sufficient. They always stall by repeating the same statements and questions.

    The Senate has the opportunity to do what is right, vote for the Supreme Court nominee!

  • Jerry chandler

    09/22/2020 01:07 PM

    Mike. Let your readers know to
    flood Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowskis mail box and voice mail box with urgent messages to support the President by approving his Supreme Court justice candidate. They can even send emails. That info is on their websites.
    Susan Collins phone: 202-224-2523
    Lisa Murkoeski phone: 202-224-6665

  • Dorothy M McReynolds

    09/22/2020 12:54 PM

    IF what Ted Cruz said is correct, and you would know, then please encourage our president to just relay the facts about the past record of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Cruz told ABC that there has been 29 SCOTUS vacancies in an election year with a nomination being made every time. Out of the 29, he said,19 were in a year where the President and Senate was of the same party and 17 were confirmed. The other 10 were, as in 2016, where the President and Senate were opposing parties and only 2 were confirmed. That makes it so evident that this is not a "new thing" rather just one more hissy fit. The reason that I questioned whether these are actual facts is because I cannot verify what Cruz said about Jimmy Carter making a nomination in November, a week after being defeated by Ronald Reagan, and the Democrat Senate confirming it in December. Everything I find says that Carter did not make a nomination for SCOTUS. I haven't checked out the other numbers. I'd love to know if they are correct because I'd like to repeat them if they are.

  • Gary L. Willey

    09/22/2020 12:38 PM

    When Republicans gain control of the Senate again, their first order of business should be to reverse that 'Nuclear Option' and Amend the Constitution in a manner that it can not be changed in the future. There is a very good reason it was set up to require a two thirds majority!