Skip to main content

Democrats are champions at Court-Stacking

MoveOn.org says of the "nuclear option":

Their plan is to throw out 200 years of checks and balances in the Senate, by silencing the minority party for the first time in American history. It's a maneuver so outrageous that even Republicans call it the "nuclear option." It will take 51 senators to defeat them, and the vote is probably less than a month away.

If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.

No, indeed, it happened before. Does anyone remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt? And talk about stacking the court. FDR, a Democrat, was the champion at this.

What MoveOn.Org means by all this is that they don't want courts stacked with judges the people want, and who will interpret the Constitution based on the plain meaning of its plain words - they want the courts to be full of radical, activist, socialist judges.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html

And I quote:

"Despite these developments, Roosevelt refused to withdraw his court-reform bill. While he did agree to compromise, FDR's chances of getting the bill through Congress began to look poor. The Senate Judiciary Committee, although dominated by Democrats, issued a report that recommended against the president's proposal. "This bill," the report declared, "is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this Country."

DEMOCRATS said that the actions of FDR were an "invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this Country." Which is funny because that's exactly the claim MoveOn.org is trying to make against the Republicans now.

So when MoveOn.org cries about the Republicans doing what their socialist hero FDR tried to do and largely succeeded in doing, you see, their cries seem foul and fake.

Perhaps it's the case that moveon.org is simply ignorant and unaware of history. But I doubt it. They seem like smart, well-spoken people. I am certain they are aware of the sleazy tricks by which the Democrats gained massive power and threw out the Constitution, using the Depression as an excuse to implement a socialist welfare state.

Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

That's funny. DEMOCRAT Congresswoman Diana DeGette has taken more money from corporate giant Qwest than any Colorado Republican. This information is public record. Why does MoveOn try to claim that Republicans are the "tools of big business"?

Because MoveOn.Org promulgates the tired old class-warfare sing-song of the Socialist movement.

But guess what - in a free nation, everyone is a capitalist. Everyone has the right and freedom to work as hard as they want, to save their money, and to build a future that is under their own individual control.

MoveOn.Org wants a socialist vision, where government and its cronies tell you what to do, where to go, how much money you can make. And they want judges on the Federal bench that make law by fiat, and are scared to death of judges who will go back to interpreting and applying the law that Congress - beholden and accountable to the people - makes. Judges are accountable to noone - to have judges make law is no different than having a king or absolute dictator. Yet this was the "Progressive" vision in the 20th century.

Fortunately, the tide of history changes once again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Transparency needed in investigations of police

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make.

HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources.

1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared.

However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opportun…