After two years of the Mueller “witch-hunt,” impeaching President Trump of “Russian collusion” is fast becoming a non-issue. Moreover, the likelihood that the President will be elected to a second term in 2020 is perhaps the reason why desperate Democrats are now attempting to rewrite both the Constitution and America’s election laws.
Democrats are concerned that if President Trump should win a second term, he would most likely (at minimum), be able to pick another Supreme Court Justice — considering that the most liberal Justice currently on the bench is 86-year old Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In fact, Justice Ginsburg just recently underwent “Surgery to remove two malignant nodules from her left lung.” She’s also had a history of other cancers within her lifetime.
For those apparent reasons several Democratic contenders have begun a national dialog of attempting to convince the general public that the current number of 9 Justices isn’t enough – they would like to add perhaps as many as 6 new Justices.
Candidates including Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the court if they become president.
The lingering liberal anger over President Trump’s historic win in 2016, along with nominating two conservative justices, perhaps changes the balance within the Court back slightly towards a more literal interpretation of our Constitution by those Justices, without liberal equivocation.
In a recent interview Warren’s progressive anger spilled over, “First they steal a Supreme Court seat, and then they turn around and change the rules on the filibuster on a Supreme Court seat.”
Adding, “So when it swings back to us what are we going to do? I think all the options are on the table.”
If elected Democrats plan a massive overhaul of perhaps our most sacred institution, not fully (as yet) compromised by politics.
Democrats would add more Justices while changing the rules on who can serve and for how long.
Among the proposals are rotating justices on and off the bench from the lower appellate courts and imposing term limits for currently life-tenured federal judges.
Another wanna-be Presidential contender Cory Booker chimed in saying “I would like to start exploring a lot of options. Term limits for Supreme Court justices might be one thing.”
Adding, “One idea that I think is interesting is, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” “The bottom line is, we’ve got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.”
One can only wonder if Hillary Clinton was currently sitting in the Oval Office if either Warren or Booker would be so adamantly inclined to change the entire legal structure of the Supreme Court?
The President, never missing an opportunity in calling out the delusional left, responded to the preposterous proposals during a Rose Garden press conference Tuesday.
“I wouldn’t entertain that. The only reason that they’re doing that is they want to try and catch up,” he said when asked about so-called court-packing schemes.
Democrats when faced with a challenge always seem to overreach. In their misguided zeal to one-upmanship the President, in this instance attempting to pack the Supreme Court, hoping that a new Democratic president could quickly offset the current 5-4 conservative majority.
However, like most things in life, the pendulum usually swings back to where it began and what seemed like a winning political strategy can be politically perilous in due time.
“Something this controversial could be bad for Democrats indeed in the 2020 election,” said Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Where does it end? If President Kamala Harris adds two justices, then the next Republican president adds two more in a constant cycle, until we end up with 134 people on Supreme Court.”