Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. They are who we thought they were; will we let them win anyway?: Part 2

 

Ballot boxDemocrats are not trying to hide their totalitarian intentions anymore. We are without excuse if we let them win what will be the last free and roughly fair election in any of our lifetimes. The Supreme Court will either swing back to preserving our constitutional republic, led by Justice Thomas and the Courageous ACB, or it will be the implement of our destruction, with at least 6 leftists plus the craven fool Roberts gutting the Constitution and affirming socialist tyranny not by bullets, at first, but by rigging our electoral system. Between imposing voting laws that favor Democrat ballot box stuffing and stuffing the Senate with two to four new permanent Democrat members, from the new states of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, the Democrats said the quiet things out loud. There is not next time, not really. There is no “when Republicans get back in power.” Consider the Democrats’ response to a Republican president actually taking his campaign promises seriously and doing what every Republican since Reagan has promised.

Democrats did not make the mistake of assaulting Judge Amy Coney Barrett a second time as they did when she was nominated for an appeals court seat. They did not repeat the Kavanaugh fiasco. Instead, they laid the predicate, established the public narrative, that the process was illegitimate, that it was “packing the court.” This is so they can engage in real court-packing, adding as many seats as they deem necessary to make the court a rubber stamp for a Harris-Schumer-AOC agenda.

Like the Senate filibuster, the nine-seat court is gone forever if we let Biden win. The left will not accept not controlling the Supreme Court. Ever. Only if the court votes their way on every issue that matters to the socialist wing of the Democrat Party is the court legitimate.

1. Listen to leading Democrats:

Here is AOC’s response to the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

Sure, a young firebrand says this, but what about the Speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi wrapped the court-packing agenda in words about the history and supported using a commission to justify the Democrats’ power grab.

Asked on MSNBC whether she is “open to efforts” to add seats to the Supreme Court, known as packing the court, Pelosi left the question open.

“I think that Joe Biden has given us a good path. He’s going to have something that people can understand why this is important,” Pelosi said moments after the Senate voted to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court Monday evening.

“Not just the Supreme Court but the other courts,” Pelosi continued. “In 1876, there were nine justices on the Court. Our population has grown enormously since then. Should we expand the Court? Well, let’s take a look and see. And that relates to the nine district courts. Maybe we need more district courts as well.”

What did Joe Biden say about packing the Supreme Court, after openly refusing to state a position until after the election?

The former veep pushed the proposal in an interview with “60 Minutes” journalist Norah O’Donnell that’s set to air in full on Sunday — nine days before the election.

“If elected, what I will do is I’ll put together a national commission of – [a] bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative,” Biden said.

“And I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack – the way in which it’s being handled and it’s not about court packing.”

We are all adults here. We understand that such commissions give the answer they are supposed to give. We know that the “conservatives” will be conservatives from the disreputable Never Trump rump of think tanks and defeated politicians.

Senator Kamala Harris supported packing the court in 2019. The New York Times asked her, as a presidential primary candidate, “are you open to expanding the Supreme Court?” She answered, “I am absolutely open to it.” Now she has joined Biden in hiding the ball from the public, lying about Abraham Lincoln to lay the groundwork for expanding the court to correct an alleged wrong. Even CBS News said Harris dodged the court-packing question.

“Your party is actually openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court, which has had nine seats for 150 years, if you don’t get your way,” Pence said. “This is a classic case of if you can’t win by the rules you are going to change the rules. Now, you have refused to answer the question. Joe Biden has refused to answer the question, so I think the American people would really like to know if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, are you and Joe Biden, if somehow you win this election, going to pack the Supreme Court to get your way?”

Harris responded by referencing the 1864 presidential election, in which Justice Roger Taney’s death created a Supreme Court vacancy for President Abraham Lincoln just 27 days before the presidential election.

“Honest Abe said it’s not the right thing to do,” Harris said in reference to Lincoln waiting to name Taney’s successor. “The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land.”

This was a flat out lie. Lincoln could not send a nominee to the Senate because they were not in session. That congress did not come back into session until after the election of 1864.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faces a primary challenge and loss of his leadership position if he does not move to pack the courts. Coming from AOC’s state, this is no idle threat to Schumer. Accordingly, he is signaling support for the radical left’s desire to pack the courts: “everything is on the table.”

Melber said, “Let me ask about the other piece of this, which is the Democrats say that McConnell helped lead the hijacking of the Obama Supreme court vacancy and they changed at least for about a year the number of justices on the court. Are you open to changing the size of the court through legislative measures in the future, or is that to you a non-starter?”

Schumer said, “OK. What I’d say is this — first, we have to win the majority. I’m doing everything we can to win the majority because if we don’t, it’s all moot. We won’t be able to do a thing, and McConnell will run the Senate in the same autocratic, hypocritical, nasty style he does now. If we win back the Senate, we’ll sit down and discuss things, and I’ll say this to you, Ari, everything, everything is on the table. I’m not taking anything off.”

2. Justifying court packing:

The Democrats are advancing several justifications for their scheme to stack the judicial deck, and so government at all levels, permanently in their favor. No, expansion is not vulnerable to a tit-for-tat response, because the court-packing move facilitates a series of other moves permanently rigging the game overwhelmingly in Democrats favor. There will be the form of future elections, but the outcome will be as certain as Charlie Brown’s annual run-up to the ball held by Lucy. There is no power in a threat of retaliation “next time Republicans are in power.” We will become like Mexico was under the PRI for decades.

a. Correcting Republican Wrongs:

We hear the claim that the Republican senators broke the rules, violated norms, in not letting President Obama shift the Supreme Court hard left as he left office. We further hear that the Republicans then broke their own new norm by giving the Courageous ACB a hearing and vote before the election. This, then forms the basis, along with the smear of Kavanaugh, to right wrongs by canceling two Trump appointments out with reliable votes added to the left-wing of the Supreme Court. This rationale goes further, shifting the lower courts back into leftist control with additions there.

b. Times have changed:

Nancy Pelosi offered this rationale, and it is what we can expect from Joe Biden’s commission. The Atlantic, a former monthly news journal, claims that increasing the number of justices, perhaps to match the number of federal circuits, and making justices subject to term limits or periodic votes by the Congress, is consistent with the Framers intent. This is nonsense, as it was the Anti-Federalists who raised the alarm and lost. Yet, this line of attack has a grain of truth in it. The big lie is in the Atlantic title “Judiciary Reform is not Revenge.” Everybody knows this is all about regaining and then permanently retaining ideological control of the entire politics of the United States by putting left-wing activists back in the majority at every level of the federal court system.

The number of justices started matching the number of circuits. Today we have 11 regional plus the federal circuit and the District of Columbia circuit. Since you want an odd number for clearer court decisions, 11 is the obvious number and is just enough to skew the Supreme Court permanently, dragging Roberts along as he tries to preserve a thin appearance of judicial independence. ACB, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas would be counterbalanced by Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and two Marxists to be named later. Roberts will do whatever Democrats demand at that point. Just to make sure, the Democrats could increase the number to 13, so Roberts will be irrelevant.

c. Racism, sexism, systemic secular sins:

Senator Markey made the argument from the Senate floor that originalism is evil because it supports a systematically racist, sexist, etc. document and process. This is an instance of the 1619 Project larger argument. If the original document is tainted by the secular sins of its fathers, then we must either replace or cleanse the document through modern enlightened positions, superimposed on the documents that deplorable American citizens in their several states actually ratified. In his floor speech on Courageous ACB’s confirmation, Senator Markey attacked originalism, and so originalists, as plainly evil:

Judge Barrett is a proud originalist and textualist in the mold of her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. One of the staunchest and most arch conservatives ever to serve on the united states supreme court. And as Judge Barrett put it at her own confirmation hearing, Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy is mine, too. As Judge Barrett described so-called originalism, it means she is supposed to interpret the constitution’s text and understand it to have the meaning it had when the constitution was ratified. But interpreting the constitution in that manner has been used over and over to deny rights to women, to communities of color, and to the LGBTQ individuals, members of our society who had no rights when the constitution was ratified. Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. For originalists like Judge Barrett, LGBTQ stands for let’s go back in time, a time when you couldn’t marry who you love, when you couldn’t serve in the military if you were trans, a time when rights were not extended to gay, lesbian, by sexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or intersection individuals. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination. It has become a hazy smoke screen for judicial activism by so-called conservatives to achieve from the bench what they cannot accomplish through the ballot box, and an elected congress and as a result they roll back individual rights through judicial decisions. The activists, originalists, judges on the supreme court and lawyers in its legal community are poised to repeal the affordable care act, deny reproductive freedom, and repeal same-sex marriage. They will welcome a judge that — they will welcome a Justice Barrett and a 6-3 conservative majority with open arms.

Notice that all of this is a pure projection by a leftist who sees a reliable leftist judicial tyranny on all the important cultural issues slipping away. Senator Markey is honest if you read him with the leftist decoder glasses that invert each of the surface claims. All of these arguments will be deployed, from righting Republican wrongs to modernizing the court, to righting historic wrongs and battling systemic -isms. Whatever it takes to gain and hold power forever.

You have been warned by Democrats own words and silences. Win now or almost certainly lose your country.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hartmann von Aue Member

    Quite right. Somebody tell that Gary guy. 

    • #1
    • October 29, 2020, at 12:53 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  2. Randy Webster Member

    Clifford A. Brown: a time when rights were not extended to gay, lesbian, by sexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or intersection individuals. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination. It has become a hazy smoke screen for judicial activism by so-called conservatives to achieve from the bench what they cannot accomplish through the ballot box

    Is Markey stupid, or just a liar? How does he think gays got the right to marry?

    • #2
    • October 29, 2020, at 2:35 AM PDT
    • Like
    • This comment has been edited.
  3. Rodin Member

    Clifford A. Brown: We are without excuse if we let them win what will be the last free and roughly fair election in any of our lifetimes.

    Elections have consequences — including making future elections meaningless. 

    • #3
    • October 29, 2020, at 3:37 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor

    You are correct. They have repeatedly put us on notice. Will we step up and fight back?

    • #4
    • October 29, 2020, at 4:56 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. Stad Thatcher

    And somehow never-Trumpers think having Trump win is worse this this?

    Sheesh . . .

    • #5
    • October 29, 2020, at 12:17 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  6. Matt Upton Inactive

    Clifford A. Brown: You have been warned by Democrats own words and silences. Win now or almost certainly lose your country.

    Democratic politicians still face the same election forces that republicans do, namely legislation for anything unpopular will not get the support of Congress needed. AOC can say anything she wants from a district that has as many republicans as actual elephants. Everyone else that rode in on a blue wave in 2018 will have to be more circumspect. 

    Democrats thought they had the electorate locked up in 2008. They had a sweeping majority in the house and senate, and a very progressive president. They wanted single payer health care, and what they got was essentially a massive insurance regulation bill. It also cost them both houses in the next election, and pushed lots of state governments into firm republican control.

    Courtpacking and expanded statehood are both extremely unpopular. They are also not the priority of the average democratic voter or independent. What certain vocal progressives say they want to do, and what they can actually achieve are two very different things. 

    I voted for Trump, but it won’t be the end of the republic if he doesn’t win. 

    • #6
    • October 29, 2020, at 12:50 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHillJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Tyrants will always tell you what they’re going to. They have this pathological need to prove how much smarter they are than everyone else and they are glad to lay out their plans for all to see. And they succeed primarily because of the same smugness exists on the other side.

    For example, one of our friends at The Dispatch had this to say about voting fraud:

    She’s guilty of 9/10 thinking. This election, according to her, is no different than any pre-Covid election. We know that is patently false. So the assurances she gives rings hollow. Those 2 presidentials she worked in the past are meaningless.

    Like the protocols that advised the crews to hand over the aircraft to the highjackers, past experience is a weakness, not a strength. “I’ve never seen it happen” is not assurance, it’s a lack of imagination.

    • #7
    • October 29, 2020, at 12:50 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  8. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    This is very true. The problem with the thesis that we can just correct things in the next election is correct in traditional American politics. It is what the gutless and clueless Romney/Kasich GOP would like you to believe. Worn and tired pundits like George Will believe if we can just have a President who wears bow ties, speaks civilly, and really knows the Constitution, all will be well. Sorry, folks, but we are in a different world. If the past few months haven’t convinced people of that I don’t know what to say.

    The defect of thinking about this in traditional political terms is it ignores everything else going on. In 2020 we learned Progressives control all the major non-political institutions in our society and they are willing to use that power to censor and suppress their opponents and any news that might damage their cause. We’ve learned they are willing to use their power to put your job, your career, your education at risk if you speak up. We’ve learned they are insisting on a stifling conformity of thought – in every moment of your life, even things you consider personal, not political.

    At the political level we’ve learned that Democratic politicians will allow their paramilitary wing to dominate the places they rule, to cause property destruction and physical violence without consequence.

    The Executive Branch is the only place in our society that has taken significant organizational opposition to the craziness. The President has banned training within the government and at federal contractors and grantees, that is based on racial stereotypes and scapegoating and the Justice Department has sued Yale for discrimination in its admissions process. All of this will disappear immediately in a Biden administration.

    Should the Democrats seize the Presidency and the Senate the last remaining bastion left in the federal government is the Supreme Court. The question is will the Democrats take the risk of packing the Court, counting on the other institutions to intimidate, threaten, suppress and censor the opposition, on the belief that if they are successful in eliminating all institutional opposition in American society they can create a Permanent Democratic Majority? I would not bet against it.

    • #8
    • October 29, 2020, at 1:43 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  9. Boss Mongo Member

    Outstanding. Thank you, sir.

     

    • #9
    • October 29, 2020, at 4:42 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Matt Upton (View Comment):

    It also cost them both houses in the next election, and pushed lots of state governments into firm republican control.

    Courtpacking and expanded statehood are both extremely unpopular. They are also not the priority of the average democratic voter or independent. What certain vocal progressives say they want to do, and what they can actually achieve are two very different things. 

    I voted for Trump, but it won’t be the end of the republic if he doesn’t win. 

    It does not matter if you are bold enough:

    • passing national voting laws that gut election integrity, as they have promised, thus smothering voter backlash
    • adding two new states that will always sent Democrat senators, thus ending the Republican Party as a viable national governing party
    • suppressing speech both through government action and active collusion with social media and corporations, thus ending the possibility of effective countermobilization
    • ensuring all this survives Supreme Court scrutiny by adding 2 to 4 members

    You make the mistake of assuming past performance will predict future results. That is not how our nation’s history has actually played out. Instead, we have seen punctuated equilibrium with an ever leftward ratcheting away from the true ratified Constitution and towards social democracy, that is socialism attained through the forms of electoral politics.

     

    • #10
    • October 29, 2020, at 5:05 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  11. Boss Mongo Member

    You paint a dismal picture if we lose this election, COL.

    And I agree, too a point.

    But I have two words that give me succor:

    Cajun. Navy.

    And you can add the hillbillies, and the desert rats, and the men of steel that reside in the rust belt.

    I think things might suck for a while. And then I think those of a totalitarian bent will realize they overreached, too late.

    But, hey, I’m an optimist and a crazy dreamer.

    • #11
    • October 29, 2020, at 5:14 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  12. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    You paint a dismal picture if we lose this election, COL.

    And I agree, too a point.

    But I have two words that give me succor:

    Cajun. Navy.

    And you can add the hillbillies, and the desert rats, and the men of steel that reside in the rust belt.

    I think things might suck for a while. And then I think those of a totalitarian bent will realize they overreached, too late.

    But, hey, I’m an optimist and a crazy dreamer.

    Yes. This assumes sufficient strength at the state level, unlike the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature which is refusing Mark Levin’s repeated entreaties to boldly assert their Article II powers to control the selection of Electors, thus giving them power apart from the false rulings of a state supreme court packed by Democrat governors that is trying to throw the election to Biden by days of voting after they know how many Dems need to cheat/win on November 3.

    The path back, if we lose this election, is far more likely to be far more violent than the left’s terror campaign can be if we win. The left will have the national police agencies, and will use them. National Guards would have to be prepared to refuse federalization orders.

     

    • #12
    • October 29, 2020, at 5:39 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  13. Boss Mongo Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    The path back, if we lose this election, is far more likely to be far more violent than the left’s terror campaign can be if we win. The left will have the national police agencies, and will use them. National Guards would have to be prepared to refuse federalization orders.

    Concur, wholeheartedly. I just can’t help but assessing that the end state, grisly at reaching it might be, will fall in our favor.

    • #13
    • October 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  14. Stad Thatcher

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):
    Worn and tired pundits like George Will believe if we can just have a President who wears bow ties, speaks civilly, and really knows the Constitution baseball

    Sorry, couldn’t resist . . .

    • #14
    • October 30, 2020, at 6:40 AM PDT
    • 3 likes