Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was established by Congress in 1789 and acts as the head of the U.S.’s federal court system The United States Supreme Court was set to nine justices in 1869 and has remained so for 150+ years. So, “packing the court” means altering the court structure by adding justices, increasing the size of the court to alter the power structure that favors your ideologies.

TRUMP is not packing the court because he is NOT increasing the number of justices to alter the power of the court to a conservative ideology. He is filling vacant seats on the court and yes, they are all conservative constitutionalists. The Democrats have enjoyed a liberal United States Supreme court for decades. The Republicans have never considered increasing the number of justices to alter the court’s power to their ideology. Right now, with Amy Coney Barrett, the court will be five conservative justices, one moderate, and the liberal justices. Even the late most leftist leaning justice of all time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was an activist just says that ‘a President is elected for four years not three years’ in reference to the President’s obligation to fill vacant seats on the court.

HARRIS-BIDEN has refused on many occasions to answer the question, “If elected will you pack the court.” This means yes by refusing to answer. So, the Democrats will likely add four more justices from 9 to 13 and then fill those seats with liberal justices if they retain the House, win the Senate and the Presidency. They will take the court to seven liberal justices, one moderate justice, and five conservative justices. The Harris Biden ticket will pack the court swinging it back to liberal to do their bidding. For those who may be troubled by my referring to the Democratic ticket as Harris-Biden, I am only using the words of Biden and Harris and expressing the reality we all know to be true.

What do you mean, ‘do your bidding?’ The legislative branch has cowardly and lazily refused to do their job in legislating policy, so cases and issues have gone to the United States Supreme Court, giving it more power to govern the United States from the bench, a power that does not belong to the justices, a power that the conservative justices do not want but the liberal justices for decades have wallowed in with complete delight.

The new argument from the liberal left is that the term “packing the court” is just a derogatory term by the conservatives, what is really going on is that ‘they, the Democrats, are merely adding justices to depoliticize the court.’ Really, well when the court leaned liberal for decades why didn’t they add justices then to ‘depoliticize the court’?

The A[ssociated] P[ress]’s original post reportedly read, “Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to depoliticize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts.”

The report referred to President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

The line about court-packing serving as a way to “depoliticize” the bench was removed to reflect the idea that it was not a statement of fact, but rather the political opinion of a Democratic lawmaker.

The editor’s note read, “This story has been edited to make clear that it is Bullock’s opinion, rather than a fact, that adding justices to the Supreme Court would depoliticize the court.” – By Nick Givas | Fox News

Congress’s beef with President Andrew Johnson. (He was Abraham Lincoln’s vice president and successor.) Congress wasn’t too fond of Johnson, since its members thought that he had abused his presidential power by removing the respected secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton, from office. Congress wanted to limit Johnson’s power as much as it could. It passed legislation in 1866 decreasing the number of judges from 10 to 7 so that Johnson wouldn’t be able to appoint a new justice. Congress’s decision was short-lived, however; SCOTUS shrank only to eight justices before the 1869 decision to set the number to nine. [It has been nine justices since 1869!] – Why Are There Nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?

In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During [the Democrat] Roosevelt’s first term, the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional.

The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1939. It responded to needs for relief, reform, and recovery from the Great Depression. Major federal programs and agencies included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA). They provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth, and the elderly. The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the “court-packing plan”, was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt [a Democrat] to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled … … Wikipedia [This plan to pack the court failed and was brought down in a bipartisan vote.]

Yesterday, Monday, October 12, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett in her opening statement said, “Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches [that is, elected officials], elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try.” This is the epitome of the problem that the legislative branch by Democrats, who have long depended on the justices to do their bidding. We should not pack the courts so that it favors an ideology, we should let the President and Senate put forward credible candidates to fill vacant seats, and the legislative branch needs to resume its power and responsibilities.

Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed

The Founders, in their wisdom, knew of the perils of the kind of mobocracy the Dems are trying to enable with court-packing. Here is our extensive and in-depth article on why America is a republic, not a “democracy.” Please read the above in-depth article and if you like it, we’d appreciate you linking to it or sharing it on your social media.