Playing Politics with the Supreme Court Part 2

Judge John Wilson (ret.) comments on the Democrat’s attempt to pack the U.S. Supreme Court

Thus, the real purpose for “packing” the Supreme Court with 4 new justices, to create a new majority, is clear; Bills like HR 1, the Equality Act, and gun control measures have a better chance of being found constitutional by a Democrat-selected majority, than by the current group, which is dominated by justices who read the Constitution as written.

While the proposal to add 4 more justices to the Supreme Court that would be appointed by the Biden Administration is genuinely concerning, the likelihood of passage seems low – at least for the present time. As described by NPR, “the bill has a grim future even without GOP opposition. Asked about the proposal at her weekly news conference, Pelosi said: ‘I have no plans to bring it to the floor’…(t)he House speaker added: ‘I support the president’s commission to study such a proposal.’” Further, According to The Washington Post, “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), whose panel has oversight of the judicial branch, also said he is not ready to support such legislation. ‘Let’s think this through carefully,’ he said…‘(K)eep in mind the ultimate goal here is to make the historically proper choice for the administration of justice in the long term.’”

These carefully worded statements do not unequivocally declare the “court-packing” bill dead on arrival in the Senate. But the willingness of the House Speaker and Senate Democrats to wait for the recommendations of the Biden-appointed Commission is encouraging. “Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great ‘anchor’ of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a ‘necessary fence’ against the ‘fickleness and passion’ that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to ‘cool’ House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.” Perhaps members of the Senate Democratic caucus take these responsibilities more seriously than is generally supposed.

Again, before you start operating the device for any measurements, it is imperative that they should canadian cheap viagra be in good relationship with your partner, sex is one topic that is universally interesting. In the UK, many of the divorces during 2000 were filed from the women who failed to satisfy their partners in bed. http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/lobster/ order cheap levitra Please note that ED, if left untreated, erectile dysfunction can be one of the major causes of ED: Psychological issues: If you are not too old to get successful erection and are also physically fit, then your ED symptoms can most likely is attributed cialis 5mg tablets to some psychological reasons. Your face should be clean before use the medicine and talk to your doctor to clarify your doubts. cipla viagra

More likely, however, Senate Democrats want the “cover” of acting with the recommendation of the Biden Commission. In fact, a proposal to curtail the lifetime appointment of federal judges in general, and Supreme Court justices specifically, is not outlandish. “When the founders were drafting the Constitution, a primary goal was to shield the judiciary from the political pressures of the day. English monarchs throughout the 18th century were firing judges without cause, and the founders were hoping to guarantee some level of judicial independence from the executive… (w)ith lifetime appointments, justices are free to push their personal, ideological agendas for decades with almost no accountability. So how can we move the court away from partisanship and closer to the founders’ intent?…One compelling answer is 18-year term limits, which would solve critical problems: Supreme Court justices now serve…longer on average than at any point in American history (28 years)…some hold onto their seats past their intellectual primes… It’s no longer a priority to find the best candidate for the job who will serve with integrity and who has broad life experience. Instead, the party in charge scrambles to find the youngest, often most ideological nominee (who, at the same time, knows the right things to say at a confirmation hearing) in order to control the seat for decades to come.”

This is just one proposal. In New York State, judges are subject to a mandatory retirement age at age 70. They can be recertified up to Age 76 in two-year increments. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to look at a mandatory retirement age or specific term of service for federal judges and Supreme Court justices, rather than “pack” the Court with more and more justices.

But whether or not the Democrats succeed in placing more justices on the Supreme Court, we reiterate our conclusion from when we examined this issue in September of 2020; “As a more practical matter, were a Democratic President to carry through with any scheme to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices, there is a good chance that any such plan would come back to eventually haunt the left. All politics is cyclical… were a Democratic Administration to ‘pack’ the Court in 2021, in 2032, a Republican Administration could easily either appoint more Supreme Court judges, or scale back the number then-sitting. Significant damage will have been done, no doubt. But the cyclical nature of our system will endure.”

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.