DimWit Politics

Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court … again

 Breaking News
  • NOT asking about citizenship is political The Trump administrations wants to ask if a person living in America is a citizen as part of the decennial census due to be conducted in 2020.  Democrats have responded...
  • So … who is doing the vetting? It would be difficult, if not impossible, to argue that President Trump’s administration has not had a more than average problem with its major appointments.  Sometimes they are controversial because...
  • Pelosi wins round one against Ocasio-Cortez Not since the introduction of female mud wrestling has the been a more entertaining battle between two ladies than the political pugilism currently occurring between the reigning champion of the...
  • Renegade Paul Ryan Slams Trump There’s an old axiom that states: “Politics makes for strange bedfellows.” Indeed there was nothing stranger than witnessing the interaction between President Trump and former Speaker Paul Ryan attempting to...
  • DECEPTION: Dems Use Obama Era Caged Photo in Attacking Trump Slimy swamp dwelling House Democrats were once again caught tweeting out another egregious hoax — in an attempt to push their investigation into “inhumane treatment” at the border by using...

Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court … again

Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court … again
March 22
19:49 2019

At the height of his power – and with a firm control on Congress – President Franklin Roosevelt faced a major obstacle in his lust for authoritarian power – the damn Supreme Court. There were just too many strict constitutionalists remaining on the Court from those previous Republican administrations. The nine justices – or at least a majority of them – were striking down FDR’s habitual abuses of power. It included the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the President’s hallmark National Recovery Act (NRA).

To understand the situation, you need to know that the number of Justices sitting on the high court at any give time is not prescribed in the Constitution – that decision is left up to Congress. That number can be increased or decreased legislatively – and has been a number of times. The initial Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six. In 1807, the number was increased to seven … to nine in 1837 … to ten in 1863 … back to seven in 1866. In 1869, the number again rose to nine – and there it has stayed for 152 years.

Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 which would have up to 15 justices – immediately appointing an additional justice for every incumbent justice who would not resign at age 70. Even with comfortable majorities in both chambers, Roosevelt could not persuade Congress to pass his judicial power grab.

Out of frustration with the decision of the American people to elect a Republican President and give conservatives the power to keep the Supreme Court from becoming a tool of the radical and authoritarian left, the neo-progressive movement is resurrecting the idea of increasing left-wing representation by increasing the number of justices – essentially trumping the appointment of conservative constitutionalist justices with liberal so-called activist judges.

At the moment, the prospect of that happening is nil to none. In the first place, it would never pass the Republican-controlled Senate or signed by President Trump. In the second place, it would take effect after 2020, and there is no guarantee that a Democrat will be sitting in the White House with a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The fact that some Democrats are actually thinking about packing the Court – and talking about it – should cause pause among the American public. It is yet another example of the danger to the republic that Democrat empowerment poses because of the radical authoritarian shift in the Party.
When former Vice President Joe Biden headed the Senate Judiciary Committee in the mid-1980s, he called the idea of altering the size of the Court a “boneheaded” idea.

It should be remembered that the future of the Supreme Court – and who would determine that – was a major factor for many voters in 2016. Even those wary of Trump cast their votes for him if for no other reason than to stop the left from taking further control of the Court. In his first two appointments, Trump has vindicated those votes.

If Democrat leaders continue down the path of resurrecting all their past rejected boneheaded ideas – reparations, job killing minimum wage and regulations, socialism for all – the voters in 2020 may decide that giving Democrats a foothold on power in Washington was a very bad idea, indeed.
So, there ‘tis.

About Author

Larry Horist

Larry Horist

Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and politics. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, as well as the White House. He has testified as an expert witness before legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and lectured at major colleges and universities. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at lph@thomasandjoyce.com.

Related Articles


  1. Bob Gummz
    Bob Gummz March 23, 19:15

    Come on. Your claim is ridiculous. Let’s not go starting rumors.

    Reply to this comment
  2. Ted R. Weiland
    Ted R. Weiland March 23, 20:45

    Court packing – that is, with 100% biblically qualified judges – is precisely what America needs and which was eliminated with Article 3’s judicial usurpation and Article 9’s Christian test ban by which mandatory biblical qualifications were eliminated for civil leaders:

    “…The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh,3 as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:

    ‘And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH,4 who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart’. (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)….”

    For more, Google Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”

    Had biblical court packing not been eliminated by the 1787 cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka the constitutional framers), America would have the government depicted by the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:1-7 with judges who continually (Verse 6) bless the righteous and terrorize/punish the wicked (Verse 3-4).

    For more, see Google online book “The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.”

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

God, this country has become a divided morass of hatred and divisiveness unlike any since...

Unrelated but sorely needed! Their must be a concerted effort made known to all...

Why does they left always play the "race card" when race has absolutely NOTHING to...

Take a Look!

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.