Biden says let’s “reform” the courts
Just like good old Hugo Chavez did.
See this:
The Democratic presidential nominee released a video clip on Thursday morning revealing he will create a national commission of “constitutional scholars” to help reform the current court system…
CBS News asked the former vice president if this proposed national commission would “study this issue about whether to pack the court.” Biden responded by saying, “No, whether — there’s a number of alternatives that are — go well beyond packing.”…
Here’s the truth the forme SCHMOTUS won’t admit. His proposed “commission” will disappear the day after he is (God-forbid) elected President. This suggestion is just another way to do what he has been doing since the issue came up—avoid answering.
His far-left Democratic Party handlers will force him to pack the court, but he can’t admit it yet because Americans don’t want court-packing.
More on court-packing here.
As for the Chavez/Venezuela reference I made, there’s this from 2004:
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.
“Five years ago, President Chávez’s supporters helped to enshrine the principle of judicial independence in a new democratic constitution,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Now, by packing the country’s highest court, they are betraying that principle and degrading Venezuelan democracy.”
That was a big part of Chavez’s solidification of power in Venezuela. Here’s some of the rest [emphasis added]:
…Chavez decided to pursue the presidency (and dictatorship) through electoral politics.
Standing in his way, however, were two barriers. First, Venezuela’s 1961 constitution was designed to be anti-authoritarian. Among other things, the constitution followed the American model of dividing power among a bicameral legislature, a supreme court and a president…[T]he Venezuelan Constitution also prohibited immediate presidential re-election (allowing only for the possibility of two nonconsecutive five-year terms with a 10-year interruption)…
To make these restrictions nearly insurmountable, the constitution specified in Articles 245-248 two onerous methods of change—amendment or general reform…
In the face of an anti-authoritarian constitution and an opposition-controlled Congress, Chavez ran on a platform of constitutional reform…Despite the lack of any constitutional support for this type of plebiscite, Chavez claimed that the people, through a referendum, could overthrow an existing constitution…
…A referendum that can override any constitution eliminates the boundary between constitutional law and politics…
Several groups challenged Chavez’s referendum in front of the Supreme Court. Facing significant political pressure, the Supreme Court allowed the referendum to take place regardless of the amendment restrictions…
…An abysmal turnout rate of about 38 percent of the electorate participated in the vote to create a Constituent Assembly…
…As soon as the Constituent Assembly was in place, Chavez called on it to suspend Congress and the Supreme Court. Arguing that the more recently elected assembly members better embodied the views of the people, the Assembly then declared a state of emergency, barred Congress from meeting or adopting new laws, formed a committee to remake the judiciary, and threatened to abolish all public organs of power…
Although the Supreme Court initially opposed the Assembly’s absurd claim to absolute power, Chavez and assembly members threatened any potential opposition with violence. In the face of these threats, the court allowed the emergency decree to stand. As a result of that decision, the chief justice resigned in protest, stating that “the court had committed suicide rather than wait to be killed by the Assembly.” Within two months, the court fully caved in, holding in one case that the new Constituent Assembly was a supra-constitutional body and thus “cannot be subject to the limits of the existing judicial order, including the current Constitution.” With this final blessing in place, the Assembly later sacked and replaced most members of the Supreme Court.
With all opposing institutions of power cowed, a new constitution, adopted after another simple-majority referendum—with a 44.3 percent turnout rate—gave Chavez sweeping decree powers and broader control over the military; abolished the Senate; extended presidential term limits to six years; empowered the president to call for constitutional amendments; and, critically, allowed for the possibility of immediate presidential re-election. As a whole, the new constitution heralded a “hyperpresidential” system that would lead to authoritarianism.
If you ever for a moment wondered why the Democrats oppose Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as SCOTUS justice so vigorously, wonder no more.
For the past year I have been taking Spanish lessons via computer from a woman in Venezuela. She’s an unemployed psychologist trying to support her family by teaching Spanish online. She lives in Maracaibo and has described to me the dystopian nightmare that once free and prosperous country has become.
I don’t know how so many people in this country can’t see that if the Democrats win, that could be us in a few years. The Democrats even have their own Antifa and BLM “collectivos” ready to terrorize the opposition.
The one thing we have going for us that Venezuela didn’t is millions of armed citizens willing to resist.
From 2006, here is the consequence of a packed court in Chavistastan/Hugoslavia: (TSJ= Venezuelan Supreme Court)TSJ judges chanting pro Chavez slogan.
Comment from blogger Daniel of Venezuela news & Views
Related:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/10/22/biden-says-hell-form-a-commission-to-study-scotus-reform-n1078156
…however, the article does not reveal in which penitentiary the commission will meet.
For the track record of a packed Supreme Court, consider the results from Venezuela. (Granted this article is 5 years old, but things haven’t changed regarding court independence.) Caracas Chronicles: What’s the 45,475th stripe to a tiger?
TSJ= Tribunal Supremo de Justicia: Venezuela’s Supreme Court.
The 45,474 cases obviously include cases the TSJ refused to review.
If the Dems do not pack the court, they will simply ignore it’s rulings, either on the ground that at least 2 of the justices are illegitimate or an outright repudiation of Marbury vs Madison. They don’t need to pack the court. That’s my prediction.
One underappreciated fact about Trump is that he always complied with court orders.
Not relevant, but 2 more predictions: Dems will reverse position and say that federal aid can be withheld from states that do not comply with anti-racism or Covid rules, and federal Gov’t can send national guard or army to shut down non-compliant events against governor’s wishes.
As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
“Although the Supreme Court initially opposed the Assembly’s absurd claim to absolute power, Chavez and assembly members threatened any potential opposition with violence.”
That’s not going to work here unless the traitors manage to disarm the public. A necessary step in fulfilling the Left’s agenda. If the left manages to steal the election, all of Biden’s ‘policies’ will drive America into another Civil War.
The Left’s ideological fanaticism and willful blindness are leading them to a terrible fate. And their insane hatred for Trump is blinding them to the reality that losing to Trump is the only thing that can save them from the fate they so richly deserve.
Chris B, that’s quite something. It sounds like a good way to help folks like her out, actually. Does she have other students, I suppose? I wonder how many other Venezuelans have taken similar approaches.
Philip Sells- yes, there are many like her, many from Venezuela. The web site I used is a web site called Verbling which connects students who want to study foreign languages online with teachers from other countries. The teachers set their own fees. You can search by country. All the teachers provide short videos and offer free introductory lessons. My teacher Naithlu is a real sweetie and I feel that we have become good friends. If anyone has an interest in studying a foreign language with a foreign national for very reasonable fees, I would suggest checking it out.
The Venezuelan constitution prohibition on consecutive elected terms brings up something important about our constitution: How are the terms of our constitution enforced? Who has that responsibility, and what resources are available to perform the task? What limitations are (or even can be) imposed on those resources to prevent subversion?
Why do Americans fall for this?
Is it a sodium fluoride in your water problem?
IQ?
Suicidal tendencies?
Roman games at the coliseum like NFL football?
Alien,
“How are the terms of our constitution enforced?”
Through a variety of mechanisms; mainly through Supreme Court rulings as to the constitutionality of legislative and regulatory measures and, through DOJ prosecutions, which enforce constitutional terms.
However, that relies upon honest servants who, for good or ill reflect the cultural zeitgeist. Thus, Pres. Adams’ aphorism; “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That phrase; “a moral and religious people” is IMO easily misinterpreted. Adams’ assertion is that the moral standards necessary for societal cohesion (and thus loyalty to a society’s constitution) can only last if a society’s moral standards are agreed to originate from an entity which stands above humanity’s spectrum of individual opinions.
At base, it matters not whether there actually is an entity declaring its moral standards as the highest truth. What matters from the standpoint of societal cohesion is that positing such an entity to exist and it having offered a ‘higher truth’ is the only way to achieve a basis for asserting there to be inalienable rights.
As, ‘rights’ whose basis is the current consensus of the majority can (and will) at a later date be modified/rescinded by another majority. And, when ‘rights’ are rescindable, in actuality they are revocable privileges. And, privileges are entirely subject to governmental consensus, which is simply a reflection of the current power structure.
Inalienable rights are a bulwark against tyranny. Whereas rights which in actuality are revocable privileges… ensure the rise of tyranny.
Geoffrey:
“Inalienable rights are a bulwark against tyranny. “ and “However, that relies upon honest servants who, for good or ill reflect the cultural zeitgeist.”
I don’t deny the existence of inalienable rights, nor do I contest the requirement for “honest servants”; in the absence of the latter, however, there’s still the issue of mortals recognizing, and particularly, enforcing, those inalienable rights against usurpers. Stalin questioned the extent of the Pope’s divisions, indicating some understanding of the earthly mandate for practical action.
For example, I’m not aware of any American community with statutes or ordinances favoring arson or battery; each is proscribed by law, yet there are numerous recent examples of such laws going unenforced and, seemingly, condoned by those charged with enforcement.
It’s only a matter of degree from burning a Starbucks to disregarding Constitutional prescriptions (as one example, consider the alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment regarding civil forfeiture); at what point is a mechanism engaged to prevent such abuse, what is that mechanism, precisely how does it, or is supposed to, operate, and who, exactly, is responsible for controlling it?
Eisenhower sent uniformed military to Arkansas and Kennedy did it in Alabama to enforce racial equity; should we expect the sitting President, whomever it may be, to similarly dispatch troops to enforce each inalienable right affirmed in the Constitution?
Allen,
Ultimately, the people are the guarantors of their own rights: the police and military act upon orders given by officials elected by the people (though the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits use of the military for law enforcement purposes, except for certain cases established by Congress through its lawmaking power–the National Guard also has state-level authorities, which can be invoked without implicating Posse Comitatus). Like the military, the police (including Sheriff Departments) are expected to disobey illegal orders.
This is where the comment about the Constitution only being viable for a moral people–we rely on those with power acting morally when force is involved (and punishing them under the law when they don’t).