Monday, February 23, 2009

Obama Will Pack the Supreme Court!

Document Source:

THE SUPREME COURT RENEWAL ACT OF 2009

File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
The proponents do not all agree on all of them, but are unanimous that Congress should soon reconsider the law applicable to the Supreme Court of the United ...
www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/judiciary-act-of-2009.doc -

I first learned of the proposal to pack the court through this blog post: http://judgeright.vox.com/library/...
http://judgeright.vox.com/library/post/no-dissent-allowed.html?_c=esv1.
My source apparently learned of it from this blog: http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/world-affairs/...
http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/world-affairs/politics-and-opinions/effort-to-stack-supreme-court-taking-shape/

The Microsoft Word document is about 77kb and contains a set of four proposed "reforms" . The "reform" of greatest concern is one to pack the court.

proposal i: regular appointments to

the supreme court

The following is quoted from the narrative accompanying the proposed code.

One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court's many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.

The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years. A variation on this specific proposal was advanced and widely discussed in 2005. It won approval from many, including bar leaders and former judges. Most opposition rested on a constitutional argument that any term or age limits imposed by Congress would violate Article III and require a constitutional amendment. But no proposal for such an amendment has been advanced, and we see no serious constitutional problem in legislating regularized appointments with diminished but continuing roles for those Justices holding office for very long terms.

Almost everywhere high court judges are subject to term or age limits that prevent the risk of superannuation. Our proposal is not a term limit but a system of rotation to assure some regularity of change in the composition of the Court. If necessary to meet the constitutional objection, the allocation and assignment of duties when there are more than nine active Justices could be left for the Justices themselves to resolve by a rule of court. There is surely no constitutional objection that could be made to that scheme, but it would be more cumbersome than the one proposed.

Two alternatives for avoiding any constitutional problem are available if thought to be necessary. One response would be to provide a large bonus to Justices who retire in good time. It would seem unjust to give such a bonus to Justices and not to circuit or district judges who now tend to surrender their power and accept senior status in good time. Another response to the constitutional question would be to revive the practice of required circuit riding. If each Justice were required to sit on a district court bench a few times a year, that requirement would again serve, as it long did, to keep the Justices in closer contact with the citizens they govern and the realities that citizens perceive. And it would reduce the likelihood that Justices will cling to an office they are no longer willing or able fully to perform. We do not favor either of these reforms but mention them as alternatives to be considered if the more modest proposal we advance is thought to raise a problem under Article III.

It appears that the legal scholars object to the presence of Conservatives on the Supreme Court bench.
One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court's many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.
Were these legal scholars raising this objection during the terms of Presidents Reagan or Bush? So why the push now? Could it be because they have a Socialist in the White House and hope to keep him there for the next 8 years if not longer? Could it be that they desire to grease the skids for changes having irreversible negative impacts upon our Constitutional rights?

Which justice has been on the bench too long? Is it Justice Thomas? Justice Sevens? Justice Scalia? Justice Souter? Justice Ginsburg? Why does the Constitution give them life terms during good behavior? Could it be the value of Judicial Independence? What happens to that vital concept if every new President obtains arbitrary power to name new Justices every two years?

Lets be clear about the context. The Socialists have working majorities in both houses of Congress. They intend to repeal the Presidential term limit, pack the court, gerrymander their districts so that no Conservative will ever be elected to replace any of them and squelch dissent with the 'fairness doctrine' & 'local advisory boards' packed with ACORN activists. They have power and they intend to solidify it; forever.
Examine the quote again; notice the red flag? The intent of this proposal is to dilute the protection of liberty & property ownership by removing the provisions preventing mob rule.
The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years.
Does any doubt remain? Does anyone remember President Obama's remarks to the Chicago NPR station in '01? He complained bitterly that the Supreme Court protected 'negative rights'; that the Constitution specified what the Government can't do to us rather than what it must do 'for' us?

Now is the time to rise up and raise Hell, before this unconstitutional scheme is fully hatched and railroaded through Congress. Go at once to http://www.congress.org/ and send an email to your Representative & senators. Tell them that their vote for this proposal to pack the court will seal your last vote for them, regardless of all other policies, positions and votes.

Don't ignore this; don't brush it off. Don't assume that someone else will take care of it.
  • Email your federal legislators immediately. Make sure that you absolutely will not tolerate packing the Supreme Court.
  • Phone radio talk show hosts and inform them about this issue.
  • Send letters to your local newspaper editors.
  • Raise this issue on forums and web sites. Copy and cross post this article.
  • Copy this article and paste it into an email to your family, friends and associates; urge them to forward it.


title 1: the organization of the supreme court

§1. Number of Justices Sitting to Decide Cases on the Merits; Quorum. The Supreme Court shall generally sit as a Court of nine Justices but if necessary six Justices shall constitute a quorum. The Court may by rule authorize a single Justice to make provisional rulings when necessary.

§2. REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. One Justice, and only one, shall be appointed during the first session of Congress after each federal election, unless during that Congress one or more appointments are required by Section 3. Each appointment shall become effective on August 1 of the year following the election. If an appointment under this section results in the availability of more than nine Justices, the nine who are junior in time of service shall sit to decide each appeal certified for its decision on the merits.

§3. vacancies. If a retirement, death or removal of a Justice results in there being fewer than nine Justices, including Senior Justices, a new Justice or Chief Justice shall be appointed and considered as the Justice required to be appointed during that Congress, if that appointment has not already been made. If more than one such vacancy arises, any additional appointment will be considered as the Justice required to be appointed during the next Congress for which no appointment has yet been made.

§4. the ofFICE OF senior justice. A Justice who is senior to nine or more Justices shall unless disabled continue to hold office as a Senior Justice. If there is a vacancy on the Court or if a Justice is recused a Senior Justice shall be called by the Chief Justice in reverse order of seniority to sit when needed to provide a nine-member Court to decide a case. A Senior Justice shall also participate in any other matter before the Court including decisions to grant or deny a petition for certiorari or to promulgate rules of court in compliance with the rules enabling provisions of Title 28.

§5. TEMPORARY DELAY IN COMMENCEMENT OF REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. Justices sitting on the Court at the time of this enactment shall sit regularly on the Court until their retirement, death, removal or voluntary acceptance of status as a Senior Justice. No appointments shall be made under Section 2 of this Title before the Congress that begins after the last of the present Justices so leaves the Court, but any Justice appointed after the date of enactment shall become a Senior Justice in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Title.

16 comments:

Shimmy said...

Great post -- thanks! Did you know that Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham met Antonin Scalia and E.D. Hill for an evening out? I heard that when the ladies were alone, E.D. Hill wanted to know why Ann Coulter wasn't devastated over not being able to have a baby, so Ann Coulter confided that she thinks about dead people when she's making love.

packerwatch said...

This isn't even a Congressional bill. It's a mock bill written by several law professors. It is not being debated in Congress. There is no effort under way by Democrats in any branch of the federal government to pack the Supreme Court. This is complete and utter bullshit.

Ben said...

Packerwatch, the feces is in yer court.

The proposed code was conjured up by a group of high powered law professors from prestigious universities.

Those are the sort of people lawyer loving 'crats turn to for help in writing legislation when it ain't composed by lobbyists.

If you'd read the source document, you'd see that it has been sent to a long list of powerful cmte. chairmen and officials, including R. BIDEN, JR.

VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HON. ERIC J. HOLDER JR.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY

CHAIR

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HON. ARLEN SPECTER

RANKING MEMBER

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE and HON, JOHN CONYERS JR

CHAIR

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

How many of those persons are likely to oppose the plan to pack the court? Yeah, right.

packerwatch said...

so? i could send a fake bill declaring barack obama "king of the universe" to prominent democrats in congress. that doesn't mean they have the political capital or will to do it.

i think this post has about as much credibility as the post a few weeks back that said that riots in the street were imminent because it would be revealed that obama is not a naturally born citizen. aka: 0 credibility.

PackSmack said...

PW, so what do YOU think will happen when [/if] it is proven that Obama was not born in the USA and therefore disqualified from being President and is removed from office?

How do you think people will react? Do you suppose there might be any demonstrations anywhere? Might any of them turn into riots? Or do you think that it will go down smoothly with no problems?

Get real, when Obama is removed from office by being declared ineligible people are going to nuts. What is so dis-believable about that?

packerwatch said...

he's NOT going to be disqualified because he WAS born in the U.S. Take off your damn tin foil hat.

Every single dumbshit who files a lawsuit about this non-issue gets laughed out of court, and for good reason.

I guess the same brilliant minds that assume Obama forged a birth certificate despite the fact that Hawaiian department of health officials have confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, and assume that Obama's parents somehow knew he would run for President, and faked two birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers after smuggling their baby into the country without a hitch might also assume that a mock bill being tossed around in intellectual legal circles is proof that Obama and the Democrats want to adopt that exact bill into law.

Ben said...

You need to have your medication adjusted, Packerwatch.

No Judge nor Jury has tried any of those cases on the merits. The Constitution is not unenforceable, if it was, it would be useless. It can only be enforced through the judicial process.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims, he could easily satisfy objections by displaying a certified copy of the vault copy of his birth certificate. The fact that he has resisted and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in that process speaks volumes about the merits of the case.

There is nothing false or fantastic in that proposed legislation. It requires only one MC to introduce it to start the process.

The scheduling of that process is a purely tactical matter. Some 'crat will do it when they feel the time is right so that they can railroad it through with minimal objection.

packerwatch said...

so why has no prominent republican said obama is constitutionally ineligible?

packsmack, this tin-foil hat wearing "ben" character is making your site absolutely laughable.

Ben said...

Peckerhead, yer tinfoil hat won't do any good unless it is grounded. You need a ground rod and #8 pure copper wire to do the job right. Its too late, of course, they already got yer brain.

The so called Republicans are intimidated and therefore ineffective. Only Senator Selby is speaking out at present, to the best of my knowledge.

packerwatch said...

It's Shelby, not Selby. And his spokeswoman said that the Senator "doesn't have any doubt" about Obama's citizenship.

Phillip J. Berg's lawsuit against Obama was dismissed as "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

Berg is a conspiracy theorist who also believes that 9/11 was an inside job. He has been found to have committed ethics violations in the past. Glad to see that you keep such good company, Ben.

Ben said...

Shelby is another hypocrite trying to please both sides.

Berg is a Liberal 'crat.
His case was not heard on its merits. The lower courts clearly erred on the matter of standing.

I understand that Keyes' suit is still pending. He and his co-litigants have undoubted standing because of being on the ballot.

Obama need only display real proof; he refuses.

PackSmack said...

SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!

packerwatch said...

"The so called Republicans"

When you decide that not a single Republican in Congress is a true Republican, that should be a pretty good indicator that YOU are not looking for a Republican...

Ben said...

When they decide that re-election is more important than the principles they were elected to promote, they become part of the problem, not part of the solution; worse than useless.

packerwatch said...

Reelection is the most important thing for any politician. That doesn't change the fact that you don't stand for the same things the GOP stands for.

From the GOP's platform (aka, "the principles they were elected to promote:")

"The struggle in which we are engaged is ideological, not ethnic or religious. The extremists we face are abusers of faith, not its champions."

Ben said...

Democrats do not have a monopoly on being full of shit, so that it flows from their mouths, G.W. Bush being a prime example.

The GOP is a "big tent", but I have not been a card carrying member since 1964. I voted in the GOP primary, except for last year, when I was hospitalized.

The quote you cited is full of weasel words; extremely dishonest. Islam is the problem; the enemy, as I have proven in several clear and well documented posts, with evidence which you are incapable of refuting.

The GOP wants the votes of American Muslims. It wants to avoid offending them, therefore it prevaricates. I won't condone that course of conduct; it is dishonest and treasonous.