an Uncensored Mind

I’m sure that the concept of packing the Supreme Court with jurists whose political leanings match a specific ideology seems like a good idea to some. For instance, those who believe the Constitution is wrong – but lack the votes to force a constitutional change – could use a “packed” court to virtually eliminate the constitutional right to bear arms, establish limits or restrictions on free speech, and hamper political opposition. But this is an extremely dangerous precedent; it could effectively lead to single-party rule and the functional destruction of our country.

This technique has been used before, with disastrous results. Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez used this method,  increasing the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices, to overrule his country’s legislative branch and implement his socialist agenda. The method was quite effective, as noted in this earlier news article quoting Antonio Canova, a constitutional law professor at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Venezuela:

When the late Venezuelan socialist leader Hugo Chavez first won the election in 1999, the country’s Supreme Court was independent. But after it issued several rulings that went against him and his administration, Chavez packed the court by passing a law expanding its size from 20 to 32 justices in 2004. Chavez got to pick the 12 new judges — effectively stacking it in his favor.

Canova, who compiled research on 45,000 rulings issued by Venezuela’s high court since 2004, says the court never sided against Chavez’s government after it was packed.

“Since 2004, I found that Chavez and the government never lost a case. Not a single one,” he said.

Chilling, isn’t it? But this is America, not Venezuela; surely this isn’t what’s going to happen here. Or is it? I think a quote from the Democrats on why they are pushing this bill might provide a clue as to the purpose and intended end result of this new law. From a recent news article quoting freshman representative Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y. :

Jones, a freshman lawmaker from New York’s Westchester County, said the Supreme Court’s decisions on campaign finance, gutting voting rights and partisan gerrymandering show the John Roberts-led court “is hostile to democracy itself.”

So the Supreme Court has issued several rulings of which the administration and these liberal representatives disagree, and that’s why they want to change the ideological makeup of the court? Doesn’t that sound like the justification used by the Chavez administration? The parallels are striking, don’t you think?

It’s important to note that the Supreme Court is not the law of the land – the Constitution holds that distinction. The Supreme Court simply has the job of interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that it is applied equally and uniformly to our system of laws. But while the interpretation of the Constitution is the domain of the Judicial branch, the contents of the Constitution itself is the domain of the legislative branch; it is the Legislative branch that has the power to make changes to the Constitution. If the Democrats want to negate the rulings of the Supreme Court that are based on the Constitution, the power is in their hands to override these rulings through constitutional amendments. If they don’t have the votes for changing the Constitution, then maybe the proposed change(s) should not be made. But using court packing to achieve the same goal acts to subvert the Constitution and all the protections it offers to our citizens.

The court has swung left and right throughout its history, driven by the availability of seats, the administration in power, and the control of the Senate. It will swing back on its own one day, much to the dismay of current day Republicans. But this move by the Democrats to manipulate the court could potentially alter the court’s ideology forever, leading us to one-party rule. And one part rule leads to tyranny.

Think not? Ask Antonio Canova.

And it seems we’re next. If true, this story should make clear to everyone but the most hard-core, far-left liberal the full scope of the power grab under way by the Democratic party:

Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court

This isn’t a slippery slope; it’s a shear cliff. Want proof? All you have to do is look at Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez was the leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and pushed for socialist reforms – very similar to the far-left members of our Congress. Chavez – in his desire to override the legislative branch – packed the Supreme Court, increasing its size from 20 to 32. The loyalist justices he appointed, now in the majority, gave him almost complete control over the country. Control of the courts also gave Chavez control over the press, which he wielded like a broadaxe to bluntly excise his opponents. His hand-picked judiciary eventually allowed his successor, Nicolás Maduro, to take control of the legislative branch. These actions contributed to the decline of what was once one of the riches countries in South America. And it all started with packing of the Supreme Court.

Do you really want “your” party to win so badly that you’ll sacrifice your own liberty in the process? Isn’t it time we finally realize that “…we the people…” means all of us, together?

Oh, well. I guess it’s time to re-write the pledge of allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the party
of the Democratic Socialists of America
And to the oligarchy for which it stands,
one nation, under Marx, divided by race,
with tyranny and injustice for non-loyalists.

Yeah, that’s about right…

Protecting their own?

CA Senate bill changes recall rules as Newsom faces ousting

SB663 allows:

“…the target of a recall campaign the opportunity to communicate with voters whose signatures were secured as part of that campaign…”

Nothing like having the ability to intimidate people who’ve supported a recall effort. That’s got to be good for everyone, right? What’s next; publicly exposing who you’ve voted for so that you can be harassed before the next election?

The politicians supporting this bill are not interested in what is best for voters; they are only interested in maintaining power. Don’t let them.