All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Friday, October 16, 2020

Trump should expand the court to 29 and appoint 20 more justices



Democrats want to pack the court by adding more justices to the Supreme Court. As two can play that same game, Republicans should agree -- and when they take over the House, Republicans should expand the court to 29.

And then a Republican Congress should pass a constitutional amendment limiting the Supreme Court to 29 justices. If 38 states say yes, the judiciary is no longer a problem for Americans who believe in America, not globalism.

Democrats don't just want to expand the court to 13 justices.

Elie Mystal at The Nation made the Marxist case for expanding the Supreme Court to 29 justices.

Mystal wrote, "Let’s start with the obvious: We cannot go on like this. We cannot continue to exist in a polity in which the death of an octogenarian begets a generation-defining game of tug-of-war. We cannot endure under a legal system in which the death of one or two people opens the door to wild changes in our laws or the devastation of the rights of people living under them.

"The way to free ourselves from the random wheel of death is to have more justices on the court. Ginsburg’s passing would have had significantly less impact on the fate of women’s rights if she had been but one of 19 people instead of nine. By the same logic, it wouldn’t have made sense for Republicans to block Garland’s appointment if it would have changed just one seat on a court of, say, 29 individuals. Every Supreme Court justice would still be important but not nearly as important as each one is now.

"Moreover, a much larger court would likely lead to more moderate opinions (if not more moderate judges, since those don’t really exist). That’s because Supreme Court opinions have to be agreed to by a majority of the court. The reason some cases take longer to decide than others is not that the justices haven’t made up their minds on the outcome; it’s that they are working hard to fashion an opinion that can attract a majority of their colleagues. Trying to get a majority of your colleagues to agree with you on a 29-person court is just a different beast from trying to get your four arch-conservative buddies to sign on to your ruling. Decisions made for the benefit of more people tend to be watered down. That’s basically how Olive Garden stays in business."

To liberals, the courts are just a restaurant.

Adding 20 justices would allow President Trump to diversify the court and make it look more like the United States.

We have one black justice today. Add three more: Daniel Cameron, the 34-year-old Attorney General of Kentucky; Robert Young, a former Supreme Court of Michigan judge; and retired D.C. Circuit judge Janice Rogers Brown.

Did someone say we need an Indo-American justice? Amul Thapar is alive and well and sitting on the 6th Circuit Court.

We need more women? Fine, promote Bridget Bade from the 9th Circuit, Allison Eid from the 10th, Britt Grant from the Supreme Court of Georgia, Barbara Lagoa from the 11th, Joan Larsen from the 6th, Martha Pacold from the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Sarah Pitlyk from the U.S. District Court in Eastern Missouri, Allison Jones Rushing from the 4th, Margaret Ryan from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and Diane Sykes from the 7th.

Add Judge Brown and 11 of those 20 picks would be women. To oppose allowing President Trump to expand the court is to be a misogynist, and that's deplorable, isn't it.

At a minimum, Democrats would expand the court to 13 to give Marxism a 7-6 advantage but Democrats are leaving nothing to chance after 2016.

They want to have at least twice as many justices as Republicans have. 17 would give them only an 11-6 advantage, but they will take it if they get Roberts to retire. Maybe they would drop that to 15.

Then Republicans come back in and make it 21.

To heck with that. Make it 29 and let President Trump appoint 20 of them. That would mean he would have appointed 23 justices, a new world record.

But it really means an end to Democrats legislating by litigation.

And after Souter and Roberts, Donald Trump is the only president I would trust with those appointments.

25 comments:

  1. I like the proposal from Glenn Reynolds Instapundit: Expand it to 59 judges, with each state appointing one by state legislators. Put a 15-year term limit on them. That way The entirely predictable death of one 89-year old justice with terminal cancer doesn’t threaten the political order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's create a "USSC Diapers-&-Embryo Taxi Squad," NFL style, which will surely save us from the otherwise inevitable "random wheel of death" (what fatuous crap).

      Here's how it works: The proposed Squad has 100 justices. Fifty of them, born between 2010-20, are immediately slotted into active case hearings, regardless of actual age and possession of a legal diploma/successful bar exam.

      All they have to do to be eligible is to have been born.

      And if you think that they'll be on the bench until the End of Time, imagine how long the other fifty will be hearing cases --- the justices who are not yet born.

      For example, Pre-Baby Justice #25 is scheduled for birth on December 1st, 2042.

      In 2020, he starts pre-emptively his service as a member of the Supreme Court, his career longevity being greatly enhanced by becoming a USSC justice at the age of Minus Twenty-Two.

      Of course, we would not expect three year-olds and up, much less the unborn, to be able to handle the workload.

      Have their clerks write their opinions until they are capable of doing this themselves, a practice that would be in keeping with the current clandestine opinion-writing whereby, as a result, many judges do appear to be more intelligent than they actually are.

      Don Reed

      Delete
    2. So, have the justices appointed by the state legislatures, huh? Why only one each? Make it two each and we can call it a Senate.

      Delete
  2. The leftist writer sounds like she is losing. "We can't go on like this." The left can't because the SC is now NOT a valid pathway for their policies. I'd rather be winning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the democrats get control and pack the court to 29, we can disband congress and just allow the liberal court to legislate. Liberal courts do that anyway and we can save bundles of money by cutting out the middleman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the heck, our Congress fails at it's #1 job every year, getting a budget passed by 1 October. May as well send them all home.

      Delete
  4. Democrats have ruled the Courts since the last days of Franklin Roosevelt. Now that it's over, they want the rules changed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would be receptive to the need, as expressed by Scott Adams, to keep the Supreme Court relatively balanced, had the Democrats ever complained about the Warren court and all those controversial 9-0 decisions.

    The Democrats seemed to be enjoying themselves at the time.

    It only took sixty years, but two can play at that game.

    Buzz off, Scott.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If all of the justices used the Constitution of The United States as the basis for their decisions, there wouldn't be a need to "balance" the court.

      Delete
  6. A better way might not be out of reach if enough states go Republican to launch a constitutional convention. Add to Article 3 section 1 the following as it's second sentence. "The number of Supreme Court Justices shall be nine and this number shall not be changed, except upon request of seven Justices." I would also add this sentence to the end of the section. "The orders issued by judges of inferior courts have no standing beyond the jurisdiction of the particular inferior court on which the issuing judge is seated."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree I've listnedto Adams and found him wanting in several areas. never completely bought his Shtick. He is supposedly an expert Hypnotist.
    I swear he uses techniques on his audience. Years ago I wa spart of a Psychology study. and the professor was using a mass Hypnosis procedure on the class unannounced I and two other people couldn't be hypnotized.
    His hand movements and voice were driving me crazy as were the others.
    I think this was due to our ADD. which actually if cultivated is a Superpower. come in handy when something imoprtant falls off the Aircraft..

    ReplyDelete
  8. We Need A Red WAVE! Please, I urge you this is the most critical election of your life. Get out the vote and Vote Trump. Or suffer the next four years!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Or suffer the next four years!!" or longer.

      Delete
    2. “next four years” ... try in perpetuity.

      Delete
  9. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Don, I love you, man. That was comedy genius.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We are heading towards Civil War. You want to stop the war you need to get rid of the reasons we want to fight. To git rid of the reasons we want to fight you need to get government out of our lives. To get government out of our lives you must reduce its size. To reduce its size you must reduce taxes. And I mean by half. No more screwing around. Less free welfare will cause a fraction the suffering the 20 million who will die in the Civil War.

    We're treating the symptoms here, not the disease. Government has grown so large and intrusive that it reaches into every aspect of our lives. The Feds-State-Locals regulate everything so every SCOTUS decision is pissing off large numbers of people no matter which way the decision goes. The only thing adding 20 judges will do is slow down justice. That's not good. We need less government, not more justices. Taxes for government is like feeding feral cats. It feels compassionate but really just creates more suffering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem, sir, is that there is no agreement. Can we reduce the size of government, unilaterally, under the present rules?
      It would be more likely to agree to a divorce.
      Divorce or civil war. Those are the options.

      Delete
    2. Government has grown so large and intrusive that it reaches into every aspect of our lives.

      I think you came to the wrong blog! This blog supports big government and hates the tenth amendment. Here you'll read about the ostensible role the feds have over health care. And interstate commerce. And undeclared wars.

      So what you propose will gain no traction here as the military would also have to be downsized. No self respecting neo-con can abide few bombs being made. And that scares the crap out of neo-cons if they can't police the world and tell foreigners how to live.

      Delete
    3. "I think you came to the wrong blog!"

      Great observation and advice. You should follow it!

      Delete
  11. Reading liberal opinions on the Supreme Court has solidified my stand: We have to get a divorce. There is no room for compromise, we can't live with each other.
    Either appoint a commission to equitably split the land, debts and assets, OR allow a group of warlords to do it in the heat of battle.
    There are no other options, except to suffer the indignity of this perpetual national nagging and sniping.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If there’s going to be that many SCOTUS legal beagles, surely there’s room for a graduate of the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The term "Conservative Justices" is misleading.
    There are the justices who adhere to the Constitution, and those who don't.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Forget court packing. Pass a law or amendment that requires a unanimous court decision to overturn legislation as unconstitutional. This will ensure that Congress can resume its place so the people's voice is heard. Blatant Constitutional violations will still be overturned by the court but creative interpretations will play no role. That way a court of 9 or 99 justices will not matter.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the Republicans should expand the House to 3,600 members - 1 Rep per 100,000 Citizens. We should also have 400 more Senators. If All of them right now can jo to Congress become $10-20 millionaires each, THIS would increase our National Wealth Exponentially. Then for Multinationals to buy Influence, they would have to spend 100x More $ buying influence.

    ReplyDelete