SCOTUS--the return of Court packing...

[Mr. Deez]

That goes a long way in explaining why the liberals hate the Constitution.

Explains a lot of why they're freaking out about the Supreme Court. Beginning with the West Coast Hotel v. Parrish case in 1937 (the so-called "switch in time that saved 9"), the Court basically caved in and decided it was better to ignore the Constitution and mostly let the Left have its way. They did this is in response to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which was FDR's court-packing and "reform" bill, and sure enough, the Democrats stopped pushing that bill.

Now that the Court has gone back on that deal and stopped making appeasing the Left a higher priority than enforcing the Constitution, they're resurrecting a similar threat to the one they were making in 1937. So long as the GOP doesn't throw this election away, the Court should be ok.

 

[Horn6721]

So long as the Demx don't steal another election the Court should be ok.

 

[Chop]

South Dakota weighs in.

Thune: Democrats’ Supreme Court “Reforms” Amount to Changing the Rules in the Middle of the Game

Click here to watch the video. WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today called out Democrats’ relentless attempts to politicize and undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thune noted that the administration’s most recent ploy would set an incredibly dangerous precedent and...

www.thune.senate.gov

"Thune: Democrats’ Supreme Court “Reforms” Amount to Changing the Rules in the Middle of the Game"

“And while the president’s proposals are troubling enough – a measure to circumvent the Constitution’s lifetime appointments for justices and replace the Supreme Court’s own code of conduct with a code of conduct mandated by Democrat congressmembers – who knows if Democrats will stop there.

“After all, while their proposal would conveniently start by retiring Republican appointees, Democrats would only be able to retire one justice every two years. “Who’s to say that would be fast enough for Democrats?

“We all know that court-packing – expanding the Supreme Court until you get a sufficient number of justices to endorse your policies – has gained significant traction in Democrat circles. “Indeed, President Biden’s term-limits proposal is a version of court-packing by another name.

“And it would not surprise me at all if Democrats didn’t stop there.
“Because make no mistake, Mr. President, this is a slippery slope.
“Once you start interfering, there is no going back.

“If the Democrats implement this plan, it is easy to see a future where each subsequent administration acts to ‘return balance’ to the Supreme Court, with the result that the Supreme Court changes wildly from administration to administration, losing all independence and credibility and any resemblance to the Supreme Court as established by the Constitution.

“I’d like to remind my Democrat colleagues of what happened with the filibuster for judicial nominees here in the Senate.

 

[Chop]

Dems Promise To Save 'Democracy' By Destroying SCOTUS

The Democrats’ plan to pack the Supreme Court, the last properly functioning institution in D.C., is an attack on constitutional order.

thefederalist.com

 

[ViperHorn]

“I’d like to remind my Democrat colleagues of what happened with the filibuster for judicial nominees here in the Senate.

Bingo!

 

[guy4321]

So long as the Demx don't steal another election the Court should be ok.

That's a much bigger 'if' then you'd ever think it should be.

 

[Chop]

Supreme Court decision weakens Education Department

After the justices struck down a 40-year precedent last week, experts warn of chaos for higher education amid doubts about the future of Title IX and gainful employment, among other policies.

www.insidehighered.com

 

[Horn6721]

I need help understanding.
Can't easily copy and paste on this device
So read last sentence of 3rd paragraph Robert's quote and then first sentence of next paragraph Kagan's quote.
??? Which is it?

 

[Chop]

I need help understanding.
Can't easily copy and paste on this device
So read last sentence of 3rd paragraph Robert's quote and then first sentence of next paragraph Kagan's quote.
??? Which is it?

Roberts: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion that the deference to agencies known as the Chevron doctrine “cannot be reconciled” with the federal law dictating how the executive branch writes policies. Instead, federal judges should be empowered to determine whether a regulation complies with federal law.


Kagan: “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the dissent to last week’s ruling.


This article concerns how the striking of the long-standing Chevron Deference Doctrine will weaken the Dept of Education.

 

[Horn6721]

Thanks
So Roberts is saying follow actual federal law
And Kagan says following federal law is abuse of power.

 

[Chop]

Thanks
So Roberts is saying follow actual federal law
And Kagan says following federal law is abuse of power.

My opinion: Roberts and the majority made the correct decision. No Art III federal judge should ever have to kowtow to the findings or opinions of some administrative state bureaucrat (who holds a position not specified in the Constitution).

Kagan (the smartest of the “liberal” judges) places reliance on the functionality of the system and 40 or so years of precedence.

I think Chevron deference never should have sprung into existence from a SCOTUS opinion some 40 or so years ago in the first place. Of course, many would say the administrative state itself is a non-Constitutional Frankenstein’s Monster that should be thrown off a cliff or something.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I think Chevron deference never should have sprung into existence from a SCOTUS opinion some 40 or so years ago in the first place.

Winner, winner. Between that decision and Roe, we are finally undoing some of the worst decisions of the post-war SCOTUS courts.

 

[Chop]

Winner, winner. Between that decision and Roe, we are finally undoing some of the worst decisions of the post-war SCOTUS courts.

The guy in the light blue shirt (next to the left guy) caused the crash by moving into her lane and elbowing her. It looked intentional to me. She then staggered into the far right guy (pink). The pink guy may have even tackled her as he was going down, but she was going down anyway.

This is a great way to have your subordinates compete for a raise and promotion by the way.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The guy in the light blue shirt (next to the left guy) caused the crash by moving into her lane and elbowing her. It looked intentional to me. She then staggered into the far right guy (pink). The pink guy may have even tackled her as he was going down, but she was going down anyway.

This is a great way to have your subordinates compete for a raise and promotion by the way.

You perhaps didn't notice that's just my new GIF for my sig line: Run, aggy, run!

 

[Chop]

You perhaps didn't notice that's just my new GIF for my sig line: Run, aggy, run!

Top 1% of sig lines around this joint.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

I still think Biden's proposal makes sense. If "Court Packing" is the worry, the solution is simple. This court is grandfathered in and the new law won't apply to the existing court. That would keep the Dem's from forcing out conservative leaning judges just to rebalance.

It wasn't that long ago that we were bemoaning RGB's clinging to her position to ride it out until a Dem could replace her. She was almost on life support and was still a SCOTUS. Do we really want that?

To me a 20 year limit or age 75, whichever comes first is a smart place.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

RGB

Ruth Gator Binsberg?

 

[guy4321]

It wasn't that long ago that we were bemoaning RGB's clinging to her position to ride it out until a Dem could replace her. She was almost on life support and was still a SCOTUS. Do we really want that?

She could've retired in 2016 or earlier to have Obama replace her. She didn't need to ride anything out. Her own hubris made her think even Obama can't find a good replacement justice.