+++++++++
Even if their stupid ideas are rejected the radicalism motivating their dangerous efforts must not be forgotten and they must be made to pay a high price.
If Democrats Pack the Court
After
they add Justices, the GOP could strip their jurisdiction.
By The Editorial Board
The media mostly treated President Biden’s announcement of his 36-member commission on the Supreme Court last week as a deft deflection of court packing. Well, not so fast. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and other Democrats introduced a bill this week to expand the Supreme Court to 13 Justices from nine.
Message: The Democratic left is serious about this, and the
Biden commission better not dismiss it. Oh, and pay attention, Justices.
Congress will remake the Court if you issue rulings that offend progressives.
Republicans are rightly calling this out for the political
intimidation it is. But here’s another message for the GOP and the commission
to consider: If Democrats do turn the Court into another legislature by packing
it, the GOP has the power to limit or strip its jurisdiction.
***
If that sounds radical, consider what Democrats are proposing.
Merely because GOP appointees now hold a 6-3 majority on the High Court,
progressives want to blow it up on a partisan Congressional vote. Adding
Justices in this way would undermine the Court’s legitimacy with the American
public, with perhaps lasting harm, as Justice Stephen Breyer warned in a timely
speech last week.
Many Republicans respond by saying they’ll return the disfavor
when they next have power and add more Justices. But this concedes the
progressive view that the Court is merely another policy-making body. It would
turn the Court into a de facto House of Lords, albeit with power, which would
put an end to its traditional judicial role of applying the law to cases and
controversies.
There’s a better response: Limit the Supreme Court’s ability to
function as a super legislature. Congress can do this by limiting the appellate
jurisdiction of the Court. This would limit a packed Court’s power by returning
it to the original role of the judiciary under the Constitution’s separation of
powers.
The Constitution explicitly gives
Congress the power to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the federal
courts in Article III, Section 2. The Supreme Court recognized this
Congressional authority in the 1869 case, Ex Parte McCardle . Justice Antonin Scalia
invoked McCardle’s view of
jurisdiction in his 2006 dissent in Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Much would depend on how Congress chose to define jurisdiction
to limit judicial policy-making on an expanded Court. One idea would strip
jurisdiction over cases seeking to find rights not expressly mentioned in the
Constitution. Progressives regularly ask the Justices to recognize new rights
that are protected by the doctrine of “substantive due process,” as the right
to abortion was. Congress could bar the Justices from hearing cases asking them
to use that analysis to invent new rights such as a right to suicide or to a
guaranteed income.
Another possibility would be cases
that seek to restrict political free speech by regulating campaign
contributions. A Court packed by Democrats would surely seek to overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), and a Republican
Congress could deny the Court’s ability to hear such cases.
Stripping the discretion of courts over immigration decisions
would return final authority to the federal agencies created by Congress. This
would clear away the judicial interference that has bedeviled immigration
policy and contributed to the mess on the Mexico-U.S. border.
Congress could also remove the
Court’s ability to hear cases under the 1971 Bivens precedent that recognized implied
cause of action in the absence of Congressional authorization. This gave the
federal courts more power over federal and state policies, and Justice Thomas
has said Bivens was wrongly
decided.
Cases challenging the detention of
enemy combatants could also get the heave-ho, as per Justice Scalia’s opinion
in Hamdan. So could cases
seeking national injunctions, which proliferated during the Trump Presidency.
And don’t forget cases that challenge such fundamentally political decisions as
Congressional redistricting or the Census.
***
We can think of others, but you get the idea. If Democrats want
to turn the Court into a super legislature, then they would run the risk of
having a future Congress circumscribe the Court’s writ to narrower and traditional
judicial purposes.
It’s true that a packed Court could react to this by using its
power to invalidate these jurisdictional limits. But if the Court did so, it
would invite other retaliation by Congress using its power of the purse.
Perhaps Congress would cease to fund law clerks and Court staff.
We want to be clear
that we favor none of this, at least not now. But this scenario is a warning to
the Biden court commission to be careful what you recommend. The political
intrusion into the judiciary isn’t likely to end with the addition of two or
four more Justices. Democrats are playing a dangerous game by toying with the
judiciary, and the courts and the country would be the losers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I m leaning toward him, for what it is worth and the same for Latham Saddler who is seeking to defeat Warnock.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden a no show and then when he does he makes another stupid demeaning comment (c'mon boy you now president of U.S)
and:
Meanwhile:
Biden has time for golf but not for head of Japan:
https://www.breitbart.com/poli
++++++++++++++
boisterous meals matter:
The following story is brought to you courtesy of The Next News Network. Click the link to visit their page and see more stories.
Cassandra Fairbanks from The Gateway Pundit reports, Militant Black Lives Matter extremists took over a Dallas restaurant bragging about their fondness of arson. The group barged into the restaurant while people were eating dinner, chanting “who burn sh-t down? We burn sh-t down.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am currently reading: "Behind The Magic Curtain By T.K Thorne." The book is about the tragic days that gripped my home town of "BOMBINGHAM" during the segregation days and those, including my father, who led the fight to change the form of government and rid the city of "Bull" Connor.
Though I was living in Atlanta, during this period, I was in touch with my father and knew of his efforts and involvement. The book brings back memories not only of the events but also so many of those involved.
In reading the book I am actually doing so on two levels: a) the story about Birmingham and b) what is going on today.
Ironically, Birmingham had a police department that was controlled by it's despicable Police Commissioner. However, Thorne describes many of the personnel, were opposed to Connor and his methods, though they were caught up in the culture of the times. That said, they felt deeply about what motivated them to become policemen and sincerely wanted to do their best to serve their fellow citizens.
Eventually, Birmingham integrated its police department and, from what little I know, serves the community quite well and in a professional manner.
So many of the people I knew who remained silent did so because they were commercially vulnerable and/or did not have the guts.
From an income standpoint what my father did certainly did not enhance his law practice fee wise. What it did do, however, was bring some of the finest "ostracized" lawyers to join his practice and he loved that very much. The head of the First National Bank's Trust department was fired because he held anti-segregatonist views and he joined dad's firm in an of-counsel position. (Charlie Zukoski and his charming wife were outstanding citizens.) Vernon Patrick, Erskine Smith, Richard Pizitz and several others came later and sought employment and dad was delighted to welcome them aboard. In time, David Vann, the eventual Mayor of the city, also became a partner.
My father was very proud of his firm and when the firm of late Senator Baker, of Tennessee, (Baker Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz) wanted to merge the then partners (my father was deceased) insisted his name remain on the door and become one of their's.
b) The second level on which I am reading Thorne's book contrasts today with then and anyone who does not believe history repeats itself is blind. Maybe not for the same reason but the pattern is there and, lamentably, the silent still remain silent.
You never know how you might re-act until you stand in someone's shoes. I have never marched, been placed in a dangerous circumstance, though Lynn fears I will be shot downtown because of my disputatious LTE's. (As for me I see myself rendering a public service to the brain dead.)
We are still witnessing rioting over police shootings but now entire police departments are on the defensive as radical and/or feckless politicians seek to defund and/or eliminate police. Segregation is no longer the critical issue but those who wish to destroy America are using these random, unpardonable in many cases, events to suit their own nefarious purposes and deep seated resentments over the past are being used as excuses to justify all kind of fruitcake ideas and scurrilous actions.
The statistics no longer support the atmosphere and actions of the past and, as I have noted in previous memos, I have reached a point of diminished empathy because ,once again, Democrats are in the forefront of playing the race card and stirring the pot for political reasons and to retain power.
America was never meant to be a finished product. Our Constitution is alive though not as well as I wish in terms of being strictly interpreted and followed in a law and order sense. America remains a work in progress and that is what is great about our nation. Unlike England, the opportunity for advancement remains bountiful if one is willing to put forth the effort. There will always be a bottom if there is a top but at least those on the bottom have the opportunity of changing places or at least rising.
Meanwhile, so much of the nation, particularly where Democrats are in control, and have been, seem to have swapped places with Birmingham of the '60's.
Only Stores Left Untouched In Minneapolis Were Armed By Civilians |
|
Read This Alert >>>And: And: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Always room for humor even if bad: The Hooker and The Immigrant. "$100" she replies. In broken English, he says, "Do you do immigrant style? "No" she says. "I pay you $200 to do immigrant style." "No," she says, not knowing what immigrant style is. "I pay you $300." "No," she says. "I pay you $400 "No," she says. So finally he says, "OK, I pay $1,000 to Do immigrant style." She thinks, "Well, I've been in the game for over 10 years now. I've had every kind of request from weirdoes from every part of the world. How bad could immigrant style be? So she agrees and has sex with him. Finally, they finish. Exhausted, the hooker turns to him and says, "Hey, I was expecting something perverted and disgusting. But that was ok. So, what exactly is immigrant style?" The illegal immigrant replies, "You send bill to Government." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
No comments:
Post a Comment