Democrat Leadership’s plan is to pack the S.C if they take over Congress

[johnwk]

It is no longer a secret that socialist political leaders have a plan to increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court if they seize political power, and they will then appoint socialist Justices who will impose “social justice” as the rule of law rather than support and adhere to our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

See: These Leftists Want Democrats To Pack The Supreme Court Once Trump Is Gone

”Leftists upset that President Donald Trump will get to shape the Supreme Court in a conservative direction are increasingly embracing a radical plan to expand the number of seats on the court once Democrats retake Congress and the White House.”

Make no mistake, this desire __ making our Supreme Court into a Legislative body unaccountable to the people ___ began back in the early 1930s when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a socialist democrat, attempted to pack the court under “The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937”. See Roosevelt announces “court-packing”plan

"On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial 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.

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."


And this is what the Democrat Party Leadership is about ___ subjugating our constitutionally limited system of government and creating an iron fisted socialist democracy where the mob rules, and fundamental rights and guarantees are ignored, including rights associated with property ownership.


Of course, this plan requires an overwhelming number of Justices on the Supreme Court who will ignore the true meaning of our Constitution, and give an illusion that social justice legislation adopted by a socialist political leadership in Congress, is within the meaning of our Constitution, and does not defy the text or legislative intent of our Constitution. Keep in mind this is exactly what happened when FDR’s Social Security Act was wrongly upheld by the court in 1935 which lied about the constitutional meaning of “general welfare” as the phrase appears in our Constitution.


The bottom line is, if social democrat leaders take control of the House and Senate this November, they will be well on their way to getting rid of President Trump, increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, and then appointing a majority of Justices who will uphold social justice legislation, such as free Medicaid for all, designed to alter our system of government into an iron fisted socialist/communist state, just as is Cuba or Venezuela.


JWK

The unavoidable truth is, Andrew Gillum and the Democrat Leadership’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

This is why the GOP is better than the Democrats. If they are allowed to stack the court, the second amendment goes bye-bye, followed by the first. Get ready for a SCOTUS decision that separates hate speech from free speech in the next few decades, unless the court is heavily conservative.

[johnwk]

See:

Is It Time for Democrats to Fight Dirty?

”A new book argues Democrats should take on radical strategies to cement power.

April 12, 2018


David Faris argues that Democrats have no choice but to pursue strategies aimed at tilting the balance of power perhaps permanently in their favor. The ideas he advances go far beyond age-old proposals like eliminating the Electoral College. Faris would have the next Democratic Congress and president, for instance, create several new Democratic-leaning states and pack the Supreme Court with new seats for liberal justices. Last week, I spoke with him about his strategic agenda. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.”

They tried this crap under FDR, and are now seriously talking about packing the court as a political strategy.


Forewarned is forearmed!

If Republicans lose the House we could be headed for some very dangerous times.


JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

[Zippyjuan]

Impossible for Congress to pack the Supreme Court. It is the President who gets to name candidates- Congress only gets to approve or disapprove them.

The bottom line is, if social democrat leaders take control of the House and Senate this November, they will be well on their way to getting rid of President Trump, increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, and then appointing a majority of Justices who will uphold social justice legislation, such as free Medicaid for all, designed to alter our system of government into an iron fisted socialist/communist state, just as is Cuba or Venezuela.

If they were to impeach Trump (which would also require Republicans to go along to achieve the necessary two thirds to remove him from office), the Vice President takes over- not a Democrat- and he would have the power to name justices.

The theory suggested is completely impossible.

[timosman]

The theory suggested is completely impossible.

This is their strategy for 2020.

[johnwk]

The theory suggested is completely impossible.

Not if our pinko democrat leadership takes over Congress and they get rid of a Republican as president. Stop making crap up.





JWK

[johnwk]

deleted . . . dbl post.

[Slutter McGee]

Packing the courts might lead to civil war. Not sure the Dems are willing to pull the trigger.

Slutter McGee

[Swordsmyth]

Impossible for Congress to pack the Supreme Court. It is the President who gets to name candidates- Congress only gets to approve or disapprove them.



If they were to impeach Trump (which would also require Republicans to go along to achieve the necessary two thirds to remove him from office), the Vice President takes over- not a Democrat- and he would have the power to name justices.

The theory suggested is completely impossible.

And if they impeach the VP the Speaker of the House becomes President, President Pelosi would happily pack the court with 9 new communists.

[Swordsmyth]

Packing the courts might lead to civil war. Not sure the Dems are willing to pull the trigger.

Slutter McGee

They would if the threat failed to bluff SCOTUS into submission.

[johnwk]

This is their strategy for 2020.

In addition to raiding the Medicare Trust Fund and use it to provide “free” Medicaid for all, including illegal entrants and their children.


JWK


The Democrat Party Leadership's offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

[Zippyjuan]

Not if our pinko democrat leadership takes over Congress and they get rid of a Republican as president. Stop making crap up.





JWK

So you think that the Democrats can take over two thirds of the Senate?

https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-impeachment-process

“The Senate, according to the process described in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 and 7, then becomes a courtroom for a full-scale trial, with the Senators serving as the jury. In that setting, evidence is presented both by the defendant (the impeached official) and the prosecution. A vote is then taken. If less than two-thirds of the Senators present concur in the official’s guilt, then the impeached official is acquitted and returns to the practice, responsibilities, and full privileges of his office.

“However, if two-thirds of the Senators believe the evidence proves the impeached official guilty, then the Constitution allows the Senate to impose two penalties: (1) remove the individual from that specific office, or (2) remove the individual from that office and also prohibit him from all future office-holding. This is the extent of the Senate penalty; it can withhold political positions, but it cannot impose civil or criminal penalties. (If an impeachment conviction is rendered by the Senate, a court may not overturn it; a decision by Congress on impeachment is final .)

There are 35 Senate seats up for election but 26 of those are currently held by Democrats. Assuming they get the other nine in a clean sweep (not likely), they would have 58 (and assuming that the two independents vote with them). They would still need nine Republicans to vote with them to remove their own party members from the office of President.

And unless both were impeached at the exact same time, in the event that the President is removed, the Vice President becomes President and as President gets to name his replacement who would also likely be Republican (subject to approval from Congress). It only goes to the Speaker of the House if something happened to both at the same time.

So which party changed the rules to make it easier to get their preferred nominee onto the Supreme Court? The Republicans changed the votes required from two thirds to a simple majority.

Not gonna happen. But if freaking out over the possibility makes you happy- go for it.

[Swordsmyth]

So you think that the Democrats can take over two thirds of the Senate?

https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-impeachment-process



There are 35 Senate seats up for election but 26 of those are currently held by Democrats. Assuming they get the other nine in a clean sweep (not likely), they would have 58 (and assuming that the two independents vote with them). They would still need nine Republicans to vote with them to remove their own party members from the office of President.

And unless both were impeached at the exact same time, in the event that the President is removed, the Vice President becomes President and as President gets to name his replacement who would also likely be Republican (subject to approval from Congress). It only goes to the Speaker of the House if something happened to both at the same time.

So which party changed the rules to make it easier to get their preferred nominee onto the Supreme Court? The Republicans changed the votes required from two thirds to a simple majority.

Not gonna happen. But if freaking out over the possibility makes you happy- go for it.

They won't, they may never hold the Senate majority again but they are planning this garbage for if they ever do control the Presidency and the Senate again.

[johnwk]

So you think that the Democrats can take over two thirds of the Senate?

They only need a majority to do their evil. Have you not been paying attention to the rule adopted by the Democrat Leadership?



JWK


The unavoidable truth is, Andrew Gillum and the Democrat Leadership’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs

[Aratus]

"On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial 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

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.

...

Of course, this plan requires an overwhelming number of Justices on the Supreme Court who will ignore the true meaning of our Constitution, and give an illusion that social justice legislation adopted by a socialist political leadership in Congress, is within the meaning of our Constitution, and does not defy the text or legislative intent of our Constitution. Keep in mind this is exactly what happened when FDR’s Social Security Act was wrongly upheld by the court in 1935 which lied about the constitutional meaning of “general welfare” as the phrase appears in our Constitution."

[Zippyjuan]

They only need a majority to do their evil. Have you not been paying attention to the rule adopted by the Democrat Leadership?



JWK

Which rules are those?

[Aratus]

Having 60+ Senators vote as a pack over~rides POTUS vetoes!!!
If the Democrats flip the H + S in NOV and party vote, DJT=toast.
He's gone. Way gone. Gonzo gone past tense. Think of A.J in 1868.
Having both Chambers with the GOP & the Democrats a few seats
away from being securely in control creates its power struggles!!!

[Sonny Tufts]

He's gone. Way gone. Gonzo gone past tense. Think of A.J in 1868.

Andrew Johnson wasn't convicted by the Senate, so he didn't go anywhere, except back to the White House.

[Aratus]

[Aratus]

Andrew Johnson wasn't convicted by the Senate, so he didn't go anywhere, except back to the White House.

100,ooo Thanx for saying what I often have mulled over...
How razor close the margin might be in the Senate for DJT!
Good folks here most often think DJT can win in 2020 if he has
opted for a new VEEP and has given Mike Pence some sort of
reward for his dedication to his brutally demanding day job!

[Aratus]

If DJT is hit with a Senate Trial but is not given the boot,
he'd be a lamer "lame duck" than an elevated Mike Pence.
I think Sen. Mitt Romney could have DJT's fate in his hands.
So far, Gentleman Mitt has nice poll numbers. He may win.
He'd be able to rally his fellow Senators EITHER WAY!!!!!

[Aratus]

flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop = Senator Gentleman Mitt's likely vote

[johnwk]

Which rules are those?

Rules? See, you haven't been paying attention.



JWK

Let us not forget it was Nancy Pelosi who SAID about Obamacare: “We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Voting democratic will make her Speaker of the House

[Zippyjuan]

Having 60+ Senators vote as a pack over~rides POTUS vetoes!!!
If the Democrats flip the H + S in NOV and party vote, DJT=toast.
He's gone. Way gone. Gonzo gone past tense. Think of A.J in 1868.
Having both Chambers with the GOP & the Democrats a few seats
away from being securely in control creates its power struggles!!!

Even with a clean sweep in the upcoming election (not likely), they would need nine Republicans to vote along with them to get to two thirds in the Senate.

[Aratus]

Even with a clean sweep in the upcoming election (not likely), they would need nine Republicans to vote along with them to get to two thirds in the Senate.

Mitt Romney's vote is pivotal, if he wins in Utah. POTUS Trump has been extremely controversial,
he has had a seedy side of corruption emerge in a manner not unlike NY's Boss Tweed. Mitt Romney
is like a latterday re-incarnation of Edmund Ross of Kansas, in that he is not a total herd animal if
he wants to make an impact on the course of events. He either plays out Mitch McConnell's game or
he doesn't. When I first began thinking over how close Trump was to being impeached, I put this at
at 10 to 1 odds, now it's more like 50/50 & feels awfully damn close. We may all go from an amoral
Chaotic value neutral entity from DUNGEONs&DRAGONz to the religious fervor & hypocrisy of a true
believer who either thinks God talks to him quietly or pretends this is the case. Unless M.P is a naive,
willing doormat of the worst order, he has less dirt on him, about him and near him than does DJT.
The Democrats have to weigh the merits of this, they are near a flare point. DJT has been semi-legal.

[Aratus]

Does legislation adding two seats to the U.S Supreme Court need at least 50% of the House
and 50% of the Senate to vote for it? Assuming the sitting president signs the bill? If the GOP
does have a big RED WAVE arrive in about two weeks, can the number of seats go from 9 to 11?
This might be the bold idea if there is a big BLUE WAVE. This cuts both ways, assuming that
either side has something like a romp verging on a landslide. I am sitting back reflectively.

[Aratus]

Is it possible for the Democrats to pack the Supreme Court better than FDR did in 1937?
I am assuming the GOP isn't going to try to add two hypothetical seats first, if they can!

[Zippyjuan]

Is it possible for the Democrats to pack the Supreme Court better than FDR did in 1937?
I am assuming the GOP isn't going to try to add two hypothetical seats first, if they can!

First they need to control the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

[Aratus]

.

flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop flipflop = Senator Gentleman Mitt's likely vote

.

[Aratus]

If Mitt Romney gets into the Senate from Utah, there may be days when he votes like s Democrat.