The Left’s Plan for Hostile Takeover of Supreme Court

[mystery-ak]

The Left’s Plan for Hostile Takeover of Supreme Court

Thomas Jipping / @TomJipping / May 01, 2023

Democrats in Congress, together with their allies among left-wing groups and in the media, are attempting a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court. Their current tactics demonstrate what “by any means necessary” really means.

In the system of government America’s Founders gave us, limits on government are necessary to achieve its purpose of protecting liberty. Those limits include the separation of powers, federalism, a written Constitution, and a judiciary that will follow—rather than control—that Constitution.

Limits like those help keep too much power from ending up in too few hands.

The Left, however, is after power rather than liberty and, therefore, sees limits on government as obstacles to be overcome. They especially want to control the Supreme Court because it’s the final interpreter of the Constitution, the “supreme law of the land.”

Controlling what the Constitution means is controlling what the Constitution is, no matter what it says.

The Left’s campaign to control the Supreme Court has three parts.

more
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/01/lefts-plan-hostile-takeover-supreme-court/

[DefiantMassRINO]

The same could be said for Mitch McConnell's campaign to arbitrarily deny President Obama an opporunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

There was nothing explicitly in the US Constitution that required McConnell to wait until the winner of the 2016 Presidential election was inaugurated.  McConnell made it up to deny a Dem President an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Both sides are playing dirty pool with the Federal Judiciary.

The Supreme Court would be less significant if Congress actually made laws, the President signed them into law, or Congress overrode the President's veto.

Dems obstruct GOP Presidents.  GOP obstructs Dem Presidents.

[Kamaji]

The same could be said for Mitch McConnell's campaign to arbitrarily deny President Obama an opporunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

There was nothing explicitly in the US Constitution that required McConnell to wait until the winner of the 2016 Presidential election was inaugurated.  McConnell made it up to deny a Dem President an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Both sides are playing dirty pool with the Federal Judiciary.

The Supreme Court would be less significant if Congress actually made laws, the President signed them into law, or Congress overrode the President's veto.

Dems obstruct GOP Presidents.  GOP obstructs Dem Presidents.

And there was nothing in the Constitution that required McConnell to play step-n-fetchit to Obama either, and give him a nomination at the earliest possible time.

Messing with the composition of the Court in terms of trying to pack it, and trying to force a Congressionally mandated ethics policy on the Court are both substantially worse than exercising the discretion the Constitution gives to the Congress to time when a S.C. nominee will be considered.

The Constitution, in fact, allows for precisely that sort of effect through its creation of the three co-equal branches of government.

Judging by the tenor of many of your recent posts, you may be on the wrong forum; DU may be more your speed/style.

[Hoodat]

But didn’t the Judicial Conference of the United States, which sets policy for lower court judges and whose guidance Supreme Court justices follow, change its disclosure rules for personal hospitality? Yes—effective March 14 of this year.

This “tweak” distinguished between staying at a friend’s home and at a resort he owns. The Left wants us to believe that Thomas should have followed disclosure guidance that did not exist at the time and would not exist for years.

Ex post facto.

[Hoodat]

The same could be said for Mitch McConnell's campaign to arbitrarily deny President Obama an opporunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

I refer you to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Article II Section 2

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court

Looks to me like Obama did indeed exercise his right to nominate.  And the Senate exercised its right not to give consent.

Contrast that (completely Constitutional) scenario with our current Democrat party using Ex Post Facto rules to remove a Supreme Court Justice in direct violaton of that same Constitution.

[Kamaji]

I refer you to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Article II Section 2

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court

Looks to me like Obama did indeed exercise his right to nominate.  And the Senate exercised its right not to give consent.

Contrast that (completely Constitutional) scenario with our current Democrat party using Ex Post Facto rules to remove a Supreme Court Justice in direct violaton of that same Constitution.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The same could be said for Mitch McConnell's campaign to arbitrarily deny President Obama an opporunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

There was nothing explicitly in the US Constitution that required McConnell to wait until the winner of the 2016 Presidential election was inaugurated.  McConnell made it up to deny a Dem President an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Both sides are playing dirty pool with the Federal Judiciary.

The Supreme Court would be less significant if Congress actually made laws, the President signed them into law, or Congress overrode the President's veto.

Dems obstruct GOP Presidents.  GOP obstructs Dem Presidents.

Meh, Garrick would have been a terrible justice. Should the Senate just be a rubber stamp?

Liberal justices just make shit up all the time. Like abortion, just 100% made up right. So then why should they be confirmed?

[Cyber Liberty]

If the Rats decide to try to force the SCOTUS to follow their ethics mandates, they can simply reject it because of Separation of Power.  And they will.

[Cyber Liberty]

The same could be said for Mitch McConnell's campaign to arbitrarily deny President Obama an opporunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

There was nothing explicitly in the US Constitution that required McConnell to wait until the winner of the 2016 Presidential election was inaugurated.  McConnell made it up to deny a Dem President an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Both sides are playing dirty pool with the Federal Judiciary.

The Supreme Court would be less significant if Congress actually made laws, the President signed them into law, or Congress overrode the President's veto.

Dems obstruct GOP Presidents.  GOP obstructs Dem Presidents.

Wrong.

[catfish1957]

Meh, Garrick would have been a terrible justice. Should the Senate just be a rubber stamp?

Garand has shown that if he had been appointed, would have been the most morally corrupt and politically biased SCOTUS in history.

We dodged a bullet on that one, and I (begrudgingly) have to give Turdle props for that.

[Fishrrman]

The "three parts":

First, they push the idea that the current justices are deciding cases politically, rather than impartially.

Second, the Left attacks Supreme Court decisions, and individual justices, that do not reliably advance liberal political interests, as partisan, corrupt, or unethical.

Having created this politically driven, faux ethics controversy, Democrats have introduced legislation to require the Supreme Court to produce a formal ethics code.

[LMAO]

The "three parts":

First, they push the idea that the current justices are deciding cases politically, rather than impartially.

Second, the Left attacks Supreme Court decisions, and individual justices, that do not reliably advance liberal political interests, as partisan, corrupt, or unethical.

Having created this politically driven, faux ethics controversy, Democrats have introduced legislation to require the Supreme Court to produce a formal ethics code.

And after all of that, the left, and specifically the Democrat Party, will form a commission, whose conclusion will be that, in order to restore integrity to Supreme Court, we need to add justices

[Hoodat]

And after all of that, the left, and specifically the Democrat Party, will form a commission, whose conclusion will be that, in order to restore integrity to Supreme Court, we need to add justices

Better yet, they'll declare Trump's Presidency 'illegitimate' and kick off all Justices he appointed.

[Smokin Joe]

The same could be said for Mitch McConnell's campaign to arbitrarily deny President Obama an opporunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

There was nothing explicitly in the US Constitution that required McConnell to wait until the winner of the 2016 Presidential election was inaugurated.  McConnell made it up to deny a Dem President an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Both sides are playing dirty pool with the Federal Judiciary.

The Supreme Court would be less significant if Congress actually made laws, the President signed them into law, or Congress overrode the President's veto.

Dems obstruct GOP Presidents.  GOP obstructs Dem Presidents.

Among others...

[Kamaji]

Better yet, they'll declare Trump's Presidency 'illegitimate' and kick off all Justices he appointed.

That would require impeachment, which is much harder to do.  Simpler to just pack the court.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That would require impeachment, which is much harder to do.  Simpler to just pack the court.

And impeachment doesn't invalidate judges you appointed. You have to impeach them as well.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No one should be surprised by this.

When your plan for a hostile takeover ---- in plain view ---- of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government is successful and without consequence, the hostile takeover of the Supreme Court is the natural next step.

[Kamaji]

And impeachment doesn't invalidate judges you appointed. You have to impeach them as well.

Why would the left want to remove judges they’ve appointed?