Democrat Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has a plan to make the Supreme Court less political by increasing the number of judges — a plan to pack the court. Meanwhile, Matt Ford at NewRepublic.com, says Mayor Pete’s plan won’t fix the Supremes, so he recommends a random drawing for new court picks, with term limits. Will either of these plans depoliticize the highest court, or simply lock in Progressive dominance of the judicial branch?
Categories
Mayor Pete to Pack the Court: Will He Make Supremes Less Political?
Democrat Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has a plan to make the Supreme Court less political by increasing the number of judges — a plan to pack the court. Meanwhile, Matt Ford at NewRepublic.com, says Mayor Pete’s plan won’t fix the Supremes, so he recommends a random drawing for new court picks, with term limits. Will either of these plans depoliticize the highest court, or simply lock in Progressive dominance of the judicial branch?
15 replies on “Mayor Pete to Pack the Court: Will He Make Supremes Less Political?”
At the David Horowitz Freedom Center website, FrontPageMag.com there is a banner headline that reads: INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT.
With the Progressive, Let, Modern Liberal and Democratic Socialist. (OXYMORON) all being basically the same, there is the IDEOLOGY.
Trump should nominate one SC judge a month for the Senate to confirm, from now until the election. The Senate will either have to vote on them, or not. If not, then they have no leg to stand on after Trump.
The President can only nominate a Justice if there is a vacancy on the Court.
Congress set the number of Supreme court Justices at 9 in the The Judiciary Act of 1869. The number of justices on the Supreme court has bounced around via congressional actions, but was set to the number 9 in the 1869 act.
Everybody should know that politics is a morality play! Mayor Pete is as much a moral being as you or me. There is no such thing as being “less political”, apolitical or unbiased, just as there is no such thing as humans being amoral. People can pretend to be amoral but at the end of the day, their morality will inform their behavior. But that’s the whole reason Mayor Pete is banging the drum of amorality! If people can be deluded into believing that they are amoral beings, then any behavior can be justified as long as people keep pretending it’s an amoral choice. So, everybody is biased; Mayor Pete, you, me and especially the SCOTUS. The question then boils down to, “Which bias is the best bias to be biased with?”
When our second president John Adams wrote, “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” that gave the SCOTUS the ammunition to deem the Constitution as “malleable”. With an increasingly immoral and irreligious population, this opened the door to reinterpret the Constitution to take down the Ten Commandments and allow the right to abortion.
Steve, you should have mentioned Ronald Reagan’s quip about the world’s second oldest profession bearing a striking resemblance to the first.
Speaking of grass roots, let’s say there are only two kinds of grass: Bermuda grass and Crab grass. When America was founded, the grass growing was predominantly Bermuda grass. But over the years, Crab grass gained a foothold and spread. Today, Crab grass can be found in every family in the yard and threatens to push out the Bermuda grass completely. Bermuda grass can only remain strong if it’s kept from being contaminated by other grasses.
The whole “pick 5 of these and 5 of those” idea falls flat on its face when you think about judges like Roberts, and Souter iirc, that did not end up ruling the way their appointers hoped. The only way to make something less political is to make it less.
We wouldn’t have to worry about cases being ruled on by the SC if the lawmaking bodies didn’t make such bad and arcane laws, or unpopular and unsupported ones.
I don’t have any reference, but logic says that laws must be judged constitutional or not, else why have an amendment process? If the Congress can pass a law that is not in line with the Constitution, and thus changes it, why have such a difficult process to change the basis of the law?
Wow! Steve, your proposal for the Supreme Court sounds like the original purpose of the Senate. I think it would be a better idea to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Sorry Bill, you are wrong on this one. Just as the People have the right of jury nullification, the Supreme Court is the check and balance of the Congress, when Congress creates laws that over-reach their constitutional authority. Without that check, Congress would be nothing but a committee of oligarchs, and the Constitution a worthless piece of paper. This why we need textualist Justices, not activist Justices, from either party.
If Congress disagrees with that textualist decision, it is then incumbent upon Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and submit it to the States for their approval.
While I do actually believe in the value of stare decisis, no decision should be beyond review. If a case can be made that a decision clearly contravened the intent of the Constitution, it should be overturned. I can think of several that have usurped powers not granted to government, and grossly extended powers that the Constitution never intended.
Just as our elected representatives can be so abysmally wrong from time to time, so too can five out of nine SCOTUS Justices. After all, they are only human, not the gods so many make them out to be.
Exactly. Thank ypu
*you
I’m not liking the iPad update that split the keyboard and covers the screen.
“Predictable, I’m looking at you John Roberts” Love it Scott!!
Thanks, Mark.
Thunderbench!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Love it!
Steve: Hookers are not horrible people. Politicians on the other hand…
Sorry Bill, on this one you are dead wrong.
If somewhere in the near future the Democrats were able to get a controlling majority in the house and senate and also had the presidency they could write the following law: The federal government shall immediately confiscate all firearms, using any means necessary to do so. All confiscated arms shall be immediately destroyed. In addition all gun manufactures shall be shut down and all equipment, parts and materials shall be confiscated and destroyed.
Where would the people turn for relief, if the Supreme Courts can’t intervene. Bad idea! We can’t just wait for new elections and a new law, it is too late then.
It’s a scheme. It’s always a scheme with the Democrats. They must realize that most of the country doesn’t believe what they believe. Since, at least for now, they cannot use brute force to enact their policies on an unwilling public, they come up with yet another scheme to change the rules. The nuclear option in the Senate, the Electoral College, the voting rules, the Supreme Court. What do these schemes all have in common? Change the rules so the Democrats can win. That’s all they ever have in common. It’s the main reason why we should not treat their arguments with respect, but instead point out the real reason behind all of them.