Democrats are openly talking about packing the Supreme Court if they win in November.
Joe Biden says we the people have no right to know what his position is; which means odds are he's for it or he'll do it because the DNC tells him to.
Court packing has been universally condemned for decades because it is essentially declaring that America is no longer a representative republic.
Think about it. If judges simply interpreted the law as written the number of judges wouldn't matter since the law is clear, especially when what the people who voted for the law said they thought the law meant is taken into account.
Adding extra judges to the Court would only make a difference if those judges weren't deciding cases based on the law but on the political climate or based on what they think is best for the country.
Hence people who advocate for court packing are saying that they want judges who will ignore what the Constitution actually says but adhere slavishly to what the Democrat party wants.
Take the recent Court ruling that gender = sex. The Democrats tried on many occasions to revise the law to say that and they failed every time.
But now thanks to activist judges it's the "law of the land" even though we the people through our elected representatives rejected it.
A packed court will become nothing less than imperial court which rules over us forcing us to submit to whatever edicts it chooses to issue.
When the Democrats passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote we the people responded by kicking the Democrats out. But when the Court redefined sex to be gender we can do nothing.
What Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats want is to rule over us not represent us and using a packed Court to impose on the country the laws that Democrats couldn't get we the people to support is nothing short of tyrannical rule.
Posts
1 comment:
> But when the Court redefined sex to be gender we can do nothing.
This is wrong on a number of grounds. I'll assume you are talking about Bostock v. Clayton County. First off the court did not redefine gender. Instead they ruled that discrimination against trans/gay people is also discrimination on the basis of sex because the reason you are acting against the trans/gay person is that they aren't acting as you expect/want people of that sex to act. The decision (which you should read) gives the example of not hiring a female mechanic in the 1960s because it is against societal norms for a female to be a mechanic (in the same way it is not common for a woman to love another woman).
They are not saying any usage of the word "sex" and "gender" are equivalent (which is not something liberals would even want).
But even if you were somehow right. There are things you can do. The most obvious is: appoint new justices (which is something the GOP is trying to do right now). Another would be to rewrite the law to be more explicit about its intent. The GOP probably doesn't want to do that because being so explicitly trans/homophobic looks bad.
> If judges simply interpreted the law as written the number of judges wouldn't matter since the law is clear
You seem to think that "textualism" is both an easy way to interpret law and the only way. Even textualist justices disagree with one another. Further you also sometimes promote making decisions based on intent which means you can reach a different conclusion and introduces a whole bunch of conflicting intents from the framers. So even if judges acted as you described the number/nature of judges would matter.
But really there is no reason to prefer textualism/originalism over any other interprettation. The constitution does not come with a guide telling you how to interpret it. Indeed the SCOTUS's power to interpret the constitution is not enumerated in the constitution (so pure textualism seems ruled out).
Post a Comment