Tags: Gun Control | Gun Rights | Supreme Court | alito | breyer | ginsburg | thomas

Democrats Call It 'Structural Court Reform'— It's Court Packing

former us president franklin delano roosevelt

U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, whose terms of office lasted from 1933 to 1945. He attempted to "pack" the U.S. Supreme Court with his (1937) Judicial Procedures Reform Bill. (AFP)/AFP via Getty Images).

By Friday, 21 August 2020 01:27 PM Current | Bio | Archive

President Trump’s unprecedented 200-plus judicial appointments, including two to the U.S. Supreme Court, prompted the Democratic Party to make a significant change to its platform earlier this week.

The New York Times reported late last month that liberal party activists planned to push for "structural court reform" to counter what they believed was a "Republican campaign to pack the judiciary with 'unqualified, partisan judges.'"

Although law commentator and Case Western Reserve University Law professor Jonathan H. Adler believed this was "a big deal," he added that it was "also based on a false predicate. Even [the American Bar Association], despite its bias, finds more Trump nominees to be well-qualified than Obama nominees."

Nevertheless, the liberal party activists had their way.

Presidents make judicial appointments to replace judges or justices who retire or die in office. The new language suggests adding more appointments by simply increasing the number of sitting judges.

"Since 1990, the United States has grown by one-third, the number of cases in federal district courts has increased by 38 percent, federal circuit court filings have risen by 40 percent, and federal cases involving a felony defendant are up 60 percent, but we have not expanded the federal judiciary to reflect this reality in nearly 30 years," the 2020 platform document says.

It continues, "Democrats will commit to creating new federal district and circuit judgeships consistent with recommendations from the Judicial Conference."

A decision the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court handed down earlier this month may have given party activists even more motivation to make the change.

The Ninth Circuit hears appeals from U.S. District Courts in the Western United States, including Alaska and the Pacific Islands. It has a long reputation for being a stronghold for fat-left activist judges. Trump is changing all that.

On Aug. 14 the Ninth Circuit struck down a California law banning large capacity magazines (LCMs), limiting firearm magazine capacities to no more than 10 rounds.

The court ruled that California's ban "substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights" and "struck at the core of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home."

The opinion was written by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, a Trump appointee. Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee, joined in the decision.

And you can rest assured that once the Democratic Party packs the lower courts with activist judges by increasing their number, they’ll cast their eyes to the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

With the health of the Supreme Court’s most liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, becoming more of an issue, and the next oldest justice, Stephen G. Breyer at 82, being arguably the second-most liberal justice on the high court, Democrats are beginning to feel worried.

Newsmax columnist Fr. Frank Pavone predicted last month that Democrats will attempt to pack the high court if they retain power, just like Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted in 1937. But he believed that now, just like then, the people would view it for what it was —nothing more than a raw power-grab — and the effort would fail.

Nonetheless Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman strongly argued in favor of packing the Supreme Court — but only in the event that Democrats do it, arguing that "sometimes, to get a just outcome, you have to play a little hardball."

The strange thing about it is that the Supreme Court isn’t all that conservative.

The high court has only two reliably conservative voices that remain faithful to the U.S. Constitution — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

It’s still too early to pin down Trump’s two appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. More often than not they appear to remain faithful to the plain language of the Constitution; other times they don’t.

Chief Justice John Roberts seems to move according to the current direction of the political winds.

Nonetheless that’s not good enough for today’s version of the party of Jefferson and Jackson. Every time they believe they’re on the losing end of things — even if they’re not — their first instinct is to change the rules.

The only way to keep that from happening this time is to retain the White House and control of the Senate. The president nominates judicial appointees and the Senate confirms them.

I expect we’ll retain both, but if conservatives and Republicans need additional motive to vote red in November, just imagine a world where Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Chuck Schumer talk nonstop on TV every single night.

That should scare the daylights out of them.

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


   
1Like our page
2Share
MichaelDorstewitz
Presidents make judicial appointments to replace judges or justices who retire or die in office. The new language suggests adding more appointments by simply increasing the number of sitting judges.
alito, breyer, ginsburg, thomas
800
2020-27-21
Friday, 21 August 2020 01:27 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved