Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 77: Nutty court packing & big spending schemes doom 2020 Democrats

Dems for SCOTUS expansion
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it
. -- Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows Reagan was terrific at encapsulating big ideas into short quotes. But there’s one area of government excess that even The Gipper might not have anticipated all those years ago. Speaking of the increasingly loud grumbles among Democrats and leftists bent on regaining dominance of the nation’s justice system, particularly the Supreme Court, simply through cooking the numbers.

Where the Court is concerned, “If conservatives hold power, pick more liberals,” or, “If you can’t out-reason ‘em, outnumber ‘em.”

Ever since President Donald Trump won the 2016 election (therefore ensuring him an appointment to the nation’s high Court), Democrats complained about the bleak prospects for their view of lawmaking and jurisprudence. To Democrats, if you can’t get something passed through winning elections and the normal course of legislating, resort to filing lawsuits and milk equal protection and due process to empower squishy sympathetic judges to advance some tiny constituency’s prospects of getting whatever they’re after.

Using this philosophy and bilking the federal court system, proponents of same-sex marriage jumped from the fringe idea phase to the law of the land in about twenty years. Liberals think they’ll get more done faster if they just pack the courts. In order to do so, however, they must inflate the size of the Supreme Court… but first, elect a liberal as president. Democrats are hard at work on the latter task. Caitlin Yilek reported at The Washington Examiner, “Several 2020 Democratic candidates are open to expanding the Supreme Court as a response to Republicans blocking nominees during the Obama administration.

“’We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,’ Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., told Politico. ‘We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.’

“Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have also expressed interest in expanding the court from nine members, where it has stood since 1869, after several fluctuations earlier in the 19th century. Gillibrand said Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the court in early 2017 was illegitimate because the prior year, Republicans refused to consider former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.”

Boo hoo. Every time the subject of the Supreme Court surfaces Democrats resurrect Merrick Garland’s name and proceed to screech and moan about how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unfairly denied Obama his constitutional privilege of dictating members of the Supreme Court. Never mind the fact the bench’s gaping hole was created by the sudden and unexpected death of perhaps the Court’s most originalist and conservative member, Antonin Scalia (in February, 2016).

The Reagan appointee was more than a Republican vote on the Court; he was an intellectual giant and leader of an entire school of American legal thought. The idea of replacing Scalia with some ends-oriented legislate-from-the-bench Democrat schlep was terrifying to millions who valued their precious Constitution and the rights it secures.

Scalia’s passing instantly shifted the course of not only the Republican primaries, it also brought the issue of judicial appointments to the forefront of the general election. Exit polls revealed how late-decider voters viewed the Supreme Court vacancy as an extremely important factor in their choosing between Trump and Hillary Clinton. Had there been no impending appointment, we may very well be saying “Madame President” quite a lot these days.

In addition, the empty Supreme Court seat along with hundreds of vacancies at the lower federal court levels provided Trump a golden opportunity to shore up his conservative bona fides. Arguably the best thing the Republican nominee did was introduce the list of qualified candidates he would consult when openings occurred. The list served as a reassuring security blanket to those Republicans on the fence about the outsider’s core political principles and helped refute the #NeverTrump naysayers who resorted to mockingly screaming “But it’s the judges!”

Well, yeah, to many, it was the judges. So what? Who would’ve done better, Mitt Romney?

Turns out “it’s the judges” for Democrats too, and they hope to win additional notice and favor from the bend-the-system-at-all-costs rabid leftist base of the party by promising something (increasing the size of the Court) they’ll have little to no control over even if they’re called “Mister (or Madame) President” someday. Congress sets the size of the Supreme Court and oversees the federal courts and there’s a slim-to-none chance of ever getting legislation through to alter the current balance of the institution.

No matter; what liberals can’t accomplish at the ballot box they’ll work to push through by other means. The judges topic also provides 2020 Democrat candidates with something to talk about when they’re exhausted from blabbering on about slavery reparations, Medicare for all, the crazy/stupid notion of a “Green New Deal” and free college for every kid in the land.

Naturally, Democrats run away from discussing the actual costs of what they’re advocating, or what would ensue if their court-stuffing ruses came to fruition. Stephen Moore wrote at The Washington Times, “Who will be left to pay for the Democrats’ America when everything is ‘free.’ To the extent that any of the Democrats currently running for president has offered an answer to this question, they’ve invariably claimed that they would finance their schemes by levying punitive taxes on ‘the wealthy.’ But even if you took every penny of income from every millionaire and billionaire in America it wouldn’t even pay half the cost. Some say we will just put on the federal credit card. President Obama took our national debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion, but that might be loose change compared to the new spending spree.

“Ultimately, the burden of paying for this radical transformation of America would fall predominantly on the middle class, as usual. …

“The Democrats balked at spending $5.7 billion to protect American communities by securing the border, but they’re perfectly happy to mortgage our future by spending nearly 20,000 times that amount on their own utopian fantasies. We will all have everything we want, and our country will be bankrupt.”

Many would argue the country’s already fiscally, socially and culturally bankrupt. The decline would certainly accelerate under a President (Pocahontas) Warren, (Kamala) Harris or (Kirsten) Gillibrand -- or any Democrat -- but the threat is real. The constitution’s limits on executive power would help restrain the liberals’ most wretched ambitions, but the damage would still be done.

This isn’t to excuse the GOP for its own spending excesses and lack of worry over fiscal discipline. There’ve been countless cases of establishment Republicans going wobbly when faced with trimming even small slivers of fat from the bloated federal budgetary swine. But Democrats by and large own the biggest and most destructive nightmare proposals. Any of the boondoggle dreams Moore talked about in his piece would destroy the country.

And the establishment media never probes Democrat candidates on how they intend to keep their promises. For example, a journalist doing his or her job might ask “Beto” O’Rourke about the congressional relationships he’s fostered to allow him to command a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof figure in the Senate to make good on his vow to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Or how any of the Democrat candidates would pay for pipedreams like Medicare for all when the government’s already experiencing enormous difficulties figuring out how to keep Medicare (for seniors) solvent deep into this century.

Democrats promise the moon but don’t possess a rocket to reach it. Who’s dumb enough to join them?

Polls show Trump’s maintained the modest job favorability bump he enjoyed after his SOTU address. If Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail go to extremes the president won’t need to worry about setting distinctions. Reality is a tall enough hurdle for Democrats to clear.

Share this