Following the confirmation and swearing in of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, bitter Democrats redoubled their vows to pack the judiciary in the event that they take over control of Congress and the presidency after next week’s election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had previously declared that “nothing is off the table” in blocking Barrett’s confirmation, threatened his Republican colleagues yet again in a floor speech prior to Monday night’s confirmation vote.
“The Republican majority is lighting its credibility on fire,” Schumer claimed.
“… The next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority,” he continued. “My colleagues may regret this for a lot longer than they think.”
Expand the court. https://t.co/hYC5OCeKQq
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) October 27, 2020
In a separate tweet, Omar went so far as to use cherry-picked statistics to link the confirmation of justices by the Senate to the popular vote in recent presidential elections.
“Remember that Republicans have lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes, but have appointed 6 of the last 9 justices,” she wrote.
“By expanding the court we fix this broken system and have the court better represent the values of the American people,” she added.
Contrary to her claims, questions linger as to whether Hillary Clinton‘s 2.8 million popular-vote advantage in 2016 was, in fact, legitimate, since Democrats in states like California have systematically downplayed and overlooked problems with widespread vote fraud.
Appropriately, the court’s role in the system of checks and balances drafted by the constitutional framers was to counteract the inherent problems and limitations that democratic elections present and to rise above the partisan fray.
However, while there is ample evidence of conservative appointees, including centrist Chief Justice John Roberts, siding with Democrats on many controversial issues, there is scant—if any—evidence of the court’s liberal voting bloc approaching jurisprudence with an impartial eye.
Rather, they have embraced the concept of judicial activism to extend their power and transform the court into a non-elected arm of the legislature, writing laws as well as interpreting them.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday reiterated his past criticism of Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden for hedging on the question of court-packing.
Biden’s Handler’s want to expand the Court. This would be very bad for the USA. On top of that they don’t want to provide a list of who would be chosen for the Court. MUST HAVE A LIST OF THESE RADICAL LEFT JUDGES!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2020
After fruitlessly trying to avoid the unpopular issue, Biden recently claimed he would appoint a bipartisan council to study the possibility of adding new liberal judges if he is elected president.
But regardless of his personal opinions on it, many see the former vice president, soon to be 78, as being entirely beholden to the demands of radical, extremist voices within the party.
To make matters worse, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., appeared poised to go even farther than party progressives.
Pelosi claimed that Democrats also should plan on packing the lower courts, even though doing so might undermine the Left’s own specious talking point that it was simply seeking to restore “balance” in the judiciary.
Directly after ACB is confirmed Nancy Pelosi suggests packing the Supreme Court AND District Courts:
“Should we expand the courts? Let’s take a look and see. Maybe we need more District Courts as well.” pic.twitter.com/Zh4rDQ6b5m
— Chris Martin (@chrisjdmartin) October 27, 2020
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said on Twitter that, once in power, Democrats would seek to pack the court and eliminate the filibuster, assuring them of a clear path toward their enacting agenda.
As soon as the Democrats retake the Senate we must abolish the filibuster.
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) October 26, 2020
Already, the House has passed legislation that would bestow statehood onto Washington, DC—thereby adding two more Senate seats in the decisively blue district should both chambers revisit the bill and pass it in the next congressional term.
Additionally, Democrat activists have used the courts to impose controversial gerrymandering policies that circumvent state legislatures to give themselves an advantage in congressional House elections, and many blue states have passed legislation that would effectively abolish the use of the Electoral College in determining future presidential elections.
Such efforts would entirely eliminate checks on corrupt Democrats’ political accountability and allow them to ensure permanent majorities for themselves by simply importing new “voters” in far-left sanctuary states to back their radical agenda.