This is not the first time that the Democrat members of Congress have deigned to threaten the members of the Supreme Court.
There have been discussions and proposals from some Democrats in Congress to potentially increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court, a concept often referred to as "court packing." The idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court can be a way to alter the ideological balance of the Court and is seen as a response to concerns about the current composition and decisions of the Court.
These discussions have been met with varying levels of support and opposition within the Democratic Party and the broader political landscape. It's a complex and contentious issue that involves considerations of legal precedent, political strategy, and the balance of power among the branches of government.
Conversely, from a conservative political perspective, discussions about adding justices to the Supreme Court, commonly referred to as "court packing," are viewed with skepticism and concern. Conservatives often see such proposals as attempts to politicize the judiciary and undermine the independence and integrity of the Court. They argue that expanding the number of justices for political reasons could set a dangerous precedent and erode the Court's role as a neutral arbiter of the law.
Conservatives may view efforts to pack the Court as a partisan power grab that threatens the separation of powers and the checks and balances established by the Constitution. They believe that the Court should remain independent and free from political manipulation to uphold the rule of law and protect individual liberties.
Overall, conservatives tend to oppose court packing measures and emphasize the importance of preserving the integrity and impartiality of the Supreme Court as a vital institution in maintaining the balance of power in the U.S. government.
The relationship between the Democratic Party and the Supreme Court is often perceived with caution and concern. Conservatives believe that the Supreme Court serves as a vital institution upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the Constitution against legislative overreach. They view the Court's role as essential in maintaining the balance of power among the branches of government and protecting individual rights and freedoms.
Conservatives tend to be wary of efforts by the Democratic Party to characterize the Court as a deterrent to their legislative activities. They argue that the Court's decisions, particularly those reflecting a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, are based on legal principles and should not be seen as hindrances to the policymaking process.
In response to calls for reforms such as court packing or term limits on justices by some Democrats, conservatives emphasize the importance of preserving the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court. They believe that any attempts to alter the Court's composition or limit its authority could undermine its role as an impartial arbiter of the law and weaken the foundations of the U.S. legal system.
The Democrats have, of course done what they can to intimidate individual Justices and thier families (ex. Clarence Thomas) as well as to expose Court rulings in advance of their announcement (the repeal of Roe v. Wade by an unknown in the Court)
They are very vested in neutralizing the court as they move further and further to the LEFT in their vision of the United States (i.e. socialism and islamafication) versus what the Supreme Court would rubber stamp. To conquer the Court, they must first change it.
The process of changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court would require Congress to pass legislation to amend the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number of justices at nine. Here is a general outline of how Congress could potentially change the law to add more justices to the Supreme Court:
Introducing Legislation: A member of Congress would need to propose a bill that amends the Judiciary Act to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. The bill would need to specify the new number of justices and any other relevant details.
Committee Review: The bill would be referred to a committee in the House of Representatives and the Senate for review and markup. The committee would hold hearings, gather input from experts and stakeholders, and potentially make changes to the bill before sending it to the full chamber for consideration.
Floor Debate and Vote: The bill would then be debated on the floor of both the House and the Senate. Members would have the opportunity to offer amendments, discuss the proposal, and ultimately vote on whether to pass the bill.
Conference Committee (if needed): If the House and Senate pass different versions of the bill, a conference committee would be convened to reconcile the differences and produce a final version for another vote in both chambers.
Presidential Approval: Once the bill is passed by both the House and the Senate, it would be sent to the President for approval. If the President signs the bill into law, the number of Supreme Court justices would be increased as specified in the legislation.
It's important to note that changing the number of Supreme Court justices is a significant and politically charged process with potential long-lasting implications. Any attempts to modify the composition of the Court would likely be met with intense debate and scrutiny from various stakeholders, including legal experts, lawmakers, and the public.
While that is almost possible now, a November victory from President Biden and a majority in the House (it is a squeaker as it is) can spell the doom of the venerable legal watchdog.
To that point I would say that Congressman Jeffries and the "squad" do, by their actions engage in unconstitutional and punishable activities.
An examination of the law will show that Members of Congress are expected to uphold the U.S. Constitution and abide by the laws and principles outlined in it. Engaging in activities that aim to overthrow the framework of the government would be seen as unconstitutional and illegal. The Constitution establishes a system of government with checks and balances among the three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful or undermining the democratic principles on which the country is founded.
If a member of Congress were to actively work to subvert or overthrow the government's framework, it would be considered a serious breach of their oath of office and would likely violate laws related to sedition, treason, or other criminal offenses. Such actions would not align with the responsibilities and obligations of a member of Congress who is sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
It's crucial for members of Congress to engage in lawful and constructive actions within the bounds of the Constitution to promote the well-being of the nation and its democratic institutions. Actions that aim to undermine or overthrow the government's framework can have serious legal and ethical consequences.
The question then is ...where are the Republicans to bring this man and his crew to the Impeachment dock?
Comments