I was reading an article in The Guardian the other day. It was decrying that in order to continue it’s “legitimacy”, the Supreme Court needed to have one member step down. Of course, that member needed to be a conservative.
It got me thinking. I can’t remember the last time liberals were in charge of a portion of our government, and felt that it wasn’t fair and they actually needed to tighten things up a bit, so they would sit some people down, be it in Congress, the White House, or the Supreme Court. In fact, throughout most of the 1960’s the Supreme Court was rather liberal. Never once did people complain about how that court needed to become more conservative.
So, this is just another example of The Guardian in particular, and liberalism in general admitting to the rest of the world that they are indeed as biased as can be. If having one ideology in charge of a branch of government is so bad, and it looks like the other side isn’t going to get it’s way, then why are Democrats pushing so hard to try and get rid of the filibuster rule in the Senate? They WANT to have a situation where you don’t have to work across the aisle, but you can ram your own agenda down the other party’s throats with 50 members in a 100 member body? That’s fair?
Of course, The Guardian is not being fair. They are being crybabies. They don’t like the fact that the one thing liberals have relied on for decades is the fact that the judiciary branch of government could always intervene with their losses. So, if there happened to be a Republican president, or a Republican Congress, that’s OK. The judiciary branch could “legislate from the bench” and declare laws passed unconstitutional. And if it got to the Supreme Court, hey…they’d have liberals backs!
But all of a sudden you’ve got a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court! And Donald Trump changed the game by nominating and getting through the Senate conservative federal judges. All of a sudden the playing field has shifted and isn’t as liberal as it once was. Now liberals can’t depend on the Supreme Court to back their most precious agendas. Items like climate change, abortion, immigration, DACA, socialized medicine, and healthcare all are falling on deaf ears.
What’s the liberal solution to that problem? Simple. If you can’t win the game by following the rules, then you need to change the rules. That’s what HR-1 was all about. Remember that? That basically would have insured that liberals ruled the government forever and made Republicans an afterthought. They are trying to change the rules by getting rid of the filibuster because they can’t run roughshod over Republicans on most issues. They even tried to figure out how to get DACA into a budget reconciliation bill. They got caught! And when the conservatives took at 6-3 majority at the high court, what was the Democrats response? They called to expand the size of the court to 15 so that they could out-maneuver the conservatives that had legally been nominated and appointed to the high court. If you can’t win, change the rules and cry until you do.
The Guardian, yea, all liberals are exposing themselves to the crybabies that they are. And they need to be kept in that position for a good long while until they learn how to play well with others. Frankly I don’t see them playing well with anyone. They will end up eating their own when the time comes…just wait!
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!
The Lone Cactus 
The problem with most articles from across the pond, they have their heads up their butts most of the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The dems would agree with your characterization that we have a 6 – 3 conservative court. But I offer that we have a 6 – 3 court that uses the Constitution as its compass as opposed to political agendas of the left or right . Naturally if you follow the intent of the Contsitution the left cries foul and protests a “conservative ” court. Following the intent of the Constitution is not a matter of left or right but a foundation upon we should design and legislate our agendas.The democrats insists there is something wrong with that. The sanctity of the wisdom of the Constitution is not a matter of politics but a matter of walking on well testing solid ground. Instead of surrendering to that resonable idea the democrats want to change the Court and change the Constitution. We all lose when the balance the court provides is dismissed and neutralized. They want their way not the Constitution’s way. The democrats insisted Trump was destroying the country but the fact is they are destroying the nation by circumventing the Constitution. I heard Schumer say the other day that we must follow the laws. Biden and the democrat congress people violate and do not enforce dozens of federal laws re immigration protocols. They tried to impeach Trump over Russia nonsense but Biden ingnores dozens of laws which is a very qualified and obvious grounds for impeachment and removal. Biden truly is a threat to the security of the USA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As usual, Carl, you are correct. It’s not about Liberal/Conservative. It’s about Constitutionalist/and not sure what you’d call the other side!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d say you’re assigning way to much credit to Trump as Mitch McConnell was the man who swung the court to a 6 to 3 majority.
Now, I can appreciate much of your writing but it omits that Mitch refused to consider any justice nominated by Obama with an unprecedented argument that 8 months to an election was too close and that the voters should decide (disregarding the fact that they, well, did). This of course was proven to be an outright lie when he rammed through a Trump nominee while people were actually in the process of voting.
Should a Supreme Court Justice now be forced to step down? Of course not. But don’t be outraged in the event that Dems get enough seats to pack the court. Mitch has explained explicitly that no matter how hypocritical or underhanded, as long as it’s constitutional, it’s fair game.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First of all, thanks for the comments Ronald. Much appreciated. Never really thought about giving Mitch his due on this one, so it’s a new thought to me. While he was indeed instrumental in denying Merrick Garland a nomination vote, and also did push through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, there WAS precedence in both cases. Although I found the argument rather weak, you could point to cases where the president and Senate were of the same party, it’s been done in the past, and where they were of differing parties, they’ve balked at nomination votes. So, I see both sides. But you’ve given me something new to think of. Thank you for that!!! Come back anytime!
LikeLike
I don’t think you’ll find precedence to this extreme or bold. Obama was literally denied any appointee to the seat with a full 8 mounts to go.
On the filibuster argument, it should also be mentioned that Mitch and the GOP changed the rules in order to seat Kavanaugh (R). Now we can point back and say that Dems brought this on themselves by changing the filibuster rules for lower courts (which somehow became a green light for Rs to do it too?) but we need to look at what drove Dems to act. Mitch was preventing Obama from filling lower court justices. There was a huge backlog of competent justices. I say competent because the ones who finally did slip through after the rule changes, did so with over 90% of the vote.
Now under Trump, Mitch spent much of his time ramming as many of these judge seat that he obstructed under Obama. And he changed many more rules to do so as quickly as possible.
If you recall, Trump insisted on ending the filibuster on several occasions. McConnell, even with a majority in both chambers, refused because he didn’t need it. His main concerns were filling as many judge seats as possible which he could already do and to enact a major tax break for most wealthy which he could do through the reconciliation rule.
Another thing to ponder: if Dems lose the Senate in 2022 and SCOTUS conservative seat opens, will McConnell allow Biden’s appointee a vote?
If the GOP takes the WH and Legislative Branch in 2024, will Mitch go nuclear in a heartbeat if it’s advantageous to his party?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, in essence what you’re saying is that Mitch McConnell is no different than Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, right? I mean, he’s a politician that is playing a game of politics. That’s what Harry Reid did when he 86’d the 60 vote rule for appointees except for SC Justices. And McConnell took the next logical step. Both sides have tried to ram through judges that they thought were more friendly to their party’s points of view. Democrats have relied on the Judicial system for years to block GOP initiatives. And I would say the GOP is really late in coming to the party on that account, but they finally have. It’s politics as usual in DC!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on boudica.us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are a lot of people waking up to the reality of our federal system. I’m certainly not advocating some other approach, but a few refinements in our system might be in order. The number of supreme court justices ought to be set in stone by now; the packing of the court is patently corrupt. Now, I understand that progressive presidents are likely to appoint progressive justices — that’s just a political reality. Still, there should be a standard beyond the Senate’s opinion whether a nominee is suitable for the supreme court. This may not be a good example, but I’ll give it a try. Under our judicial system, we have a presumption of innocence. We should have a similar safeguard toward maintaining our federalist system. Since each state is sovereign (and equal to) the federal government, a state exercising its prerogatives should be presumed constitutional under the Ninth Amendment unless there is an overpowering conflict with Articles I through VII of the Constitution or any other amendments. Any justice that sides with the federal government lacking this overpowering presumption would, in my judgment, be unqualified to serve on the high court. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there are refinements that could reduce the level of our government’s political corruption and return our federalist system to a level playing field. I hate that senators are popularly elected. Senators used to be the voice of their states in the US Congress.
If anyone thinks this is a stupid idea, just know that I only wrote it because a crazy person is holding a gun to my head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL…I hope you duck at the right time! But you make some interesting points. At one time I did a blog (a long time ago) on fixing Washington, and our government. I thought it pretty well took care a lot of the issues that we face today. Maybe I’ll re-write it, update it and send it out again. It’s worth a try! Thanks for the comments!!!
LikeLike