In case you missed it, following the President of the United States decision not to seek reelection and pass his nomination to the Vice President, he released his plan for reforms to the Supreme Court of the United States. In what can best be described as a Democrat Party temper tantrum, the President laid out three points for his so-called “reform” of the Court. These include reversing the ruling of Presidential Immunity for crimes committed while in office, setting term limits of 18 years for Supreme Court Justices and establishing an enforceable code of conduct against Supreme Court Justices.
The fact that the President has sat on proposing any reforms, even following the final report (link below) from his highly biased Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States until AFTER he stepped away from reelection and became a lame duck President, is indicative of the level of seriousness his so-called “reforms” should be taken as.
One would think any of our former presidents would be deeply concerned with having the presidential immunity ruling reversed. Given the life and death decisions inherent to the job, including those made for the purposes of war, even the current President should be concerned given some of his own actions, including the disastrous and deadly Afghanistan withdrawal. However, he may be relying on the Department of Justice determination of him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”, to provide him with a level of prosecutable immunity. Or perhaps those supporting it have faith the Department of Justice would never go after someone they consider an ‘insider’.
The sycophant, extremist legal pundits behind this are now saying this can be accomplished without constitutional amendments by simply imposing the conditions upon the Supreme Court by Congress and the President. In other words, two of the three separate branches of government imposing their partisan demands on the third branch.
If you’re thinking a move like this from Congress and the President would be constitutional, let’s imagine a couple different scenarios.
The President (Executive Branch) decides Congress should have term limits. Remember the President cannot independently create laws, so an Executive Order is created. Congress would justifiably say this is unconstitutional as the Executive Branch cannot impose a condition on the Legislative Branch.
The Congress (Legislative Branch) decides the Vice President is now subject to the Twenty Second Amendment limiting them to two terms in the Executive Branch and passes a law to enforce that. The President and Vice President disagree. In the first place, the President would not sign the law, as it would still be unconstitutional for the Legislative Branch to impose a condition on the Executive Branch.
I suppose the most ironic part of this would be if the President or Congress attempt to impose these changes by executive order or legislation, the opposition to it would be heard in the US federal court system and appealed up to … the United States Supreme Court.
The separation of powers for the three independent branches of government is a critical component of our government and thinking that two branches can just impose a new set of politically biased conditions on the third is ridiculous.
Amending the Constitution is difficult, on purpose, as it changes the very foundation of the country. Article Five of the Constitution describes the process:
Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either, as determined by Congress, the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states.
As with the Democrat party’s proposal to pack the court with five new liberal Justices to ‘eliminate the influence of politics’ in the Court, support from Congress, the state legislatures and the people simply aren’t there. The people are smart enough to know what is going on, an attempted political takeover of Supreme Court, and they won’t support it.
The justification behind this is the 6-3 conservative majority on the Court. In reality, it’s a 5-3 conservative majority, with the Chief Justice, who votes last, now siding with whichever side is winning. This has become evident following his capitulation to the threat of forced reform presented in the Senate Democrat’s “Heal Thyself” memo issued during the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York case.
The rational from the extremist left for packing the Court with five liberal Justices was “We’re not packing the Court. We’re unpacking it.” A critical point to be considered here. If the only way to get what they call “historic, progressive laws” to pass constitutional scrutiny is to pack the Court with far-left liberal Justices who will rule in favor of them, then it’s a safe bet the laws were NEVER constitutional in the first place.
So, why is this important to us from a Second Amendment standpoint? Well, consider that Everytown for Gun Safety and Planned Parenthood have announced their joint support for the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2023 (TERM Act), which would create 18-year term limits for current and future Supreme Court justices.
Everytown states: “One of America’s greatest strengths is our dynamism, which we’ve seen clearly in the growing public support for gun safety — and which is being stymied by a Supreme Court where lifetime appointments promote stagnation and stonewalling.” They cited Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock ban reversal) as a key element in their decision.
Here’s what it boils down to. The extremist left disagrees with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Instead of taking it as a hint that the administrative rules, laws and executive actions are unconstitutional and perhaps they should be focusing on other areas if they want to do some good, they are hell bent on changing the makeup of the Court so that they can get a rubber stamp to infringe on the people’s rights.
THIS is why I care and why everyone who votes this year should care. Reforms to the United States Supreme Court for the purposes of passing and sustaining unconstitutional laws should scare the crap out of everyone. An independent United States Supreme Court is pretty much the only thing preventing the systematic elimination of the Second Amendment right now.
Yes, your vote matters.
Bob
http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SCOTUS-Report-Final-12.8.21-1.pdf
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #SCOTUS, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com