Court-packing (Part II): Venezuela is the template
[NOTE: Part I can be found here.]
For the moment, we seem to have dodged the court-packing bullet, because the Democrats don’t quite have the votes to pass it. But I believe it’s only a temporary reprieve. The Democrats are determined to win the 2022 midterms and beyond, and although I don’t know if this will happen I know it most definitely could happen. Then they probably would be able to end the filibuster and get court-packing passed.
In addition, they are probably hoping they won’t need to do it, and that enough members of the present Court are sufficiently intimidated by the threat that they’ll be ruling more favorably towards the Democrats in the future. Another thing I believe Democrats are hoping for is illness or death on the part of one or two of the conservative justices, enough to swing the Court back into their camp and do their bidding.
But I have very little doubt that if they feel court-packing is needed, the Democrats will do whatever they can to pack the Court.
In Part I mentioned Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. There are differences between the way Venezuela was set up prior to Chavez and the way the US is set up, so the parallel isn’t perfect. But it’s close enough to be alarming. Like many dictators before him, Chavez managed to use the law to circumvent the law, and one of the final steps by which Chavez solidified his rule was court-packing.
I wrote a post about that in October of 2020, before our own 2020 election, because it was obvious what the Democrats were thinking of doing if necessary. In that post I included this quote about Chavez’s tactics. It’s relevant [my emphasis]:
…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 court-packing occurs – or the Democrats get a majority on the Court in some other way – once the Court isn’t an impediment to the Democrats doing pretty much whatever they want, they will go ahead and do whatever they want. I only see very isolated opposition to that from their side. It’s interesting to see how some members of Congress have framed the recent court-packing proposal – for example, Elizabeth Warren has this to say: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has said ‘every option’ needed to be on the table to restore credibility and integrity to the Supreme Court.”
We’ve heard a lot of Orwellian language recently, but I think that deserves some sort of grand prize.
Almost exactly five years ago I also wrote a post entitled “The suicide of nations, Venezuela, and the US.” It gave me a cold chill to write it back then. It gives me an even colder chill to read it again now.
Here it is in its entirety; it’s mostly a quote from someone else:
Joel Hirst offers a description of what happened to Venezuela:
“I have watched the suicide of a nation; and I know now how it happens. Venezuela is slowly, and very publically, dying; an act that has spanned more than fifteen years. To watch a country kill itself is not something that happens often. In ignorance, one presumes it would be fast and brutal and striking – like the Rwandan genocide or Vesuvius covering Pompeii…
“No, national suicide is a much longer process – not product of any one moment. But instead one bad idea, upon another, upon another and another and another and another and the wheels that move the country began to grind slower and slower; rust covering their once shiny facades. Revolution – cold and angry. Hate, as a political strategy. Law, used to divide and conquer. Regulation used to punish. Elections used to cement dictatorship. Corruption bleeding out the lifeblood in drips, filling the buckets of a successive line of bureaucrats before they are destroyed, only to be replaced time and again. This is what is remarkable for me about Venezuela. In my defense – weak though it may be – I tried to fight the suicide the whole time; in one way or another. I suppose I still do, my writing as a last line of resistance. But like Dagny Taggert I found there was nothing to push against – it was all a gooey mess of resentment and excuses. “You shouldn’t do that.” I have said. And again, “That law will not work,” and “this election will bring no freedom,” while also, “what you plan will not bring prosperity – and the only equality you will find will be in the bread line.” And I was not alone; an army of people smarter than me pointed out publically in journals and discussion forums and on the televisions screens and community meetings and in political campaigns that the result would only be collective national suicide. Nobody was listening.”
Gives me the willies, because although we’re not nearly there yet, we’re already way too close for comfort.
And now we’re much closer.
The party of “by any means necessary’ and “the ends justify the means” will never falter in its quest for absolute power and total control, while it is likely that the GOP will continue to behave in a manner befitting an impotent loser taking pride in being “principled”, despite the consequences of being unwilling to fight. The great historian Toynbee famously argued that civilizations die of suicide, not from murder, and our corrupt ruling elites seem determined to prove him correct. One might also recall the book entitled Suicide of the West, written two generations ago by James Burnham, who was, once upon a time (like David Horowitz), a man of the left.
The GOP is too gutless to do what is necessary- stop the mail in vote fraud.
The 2022 elections already pretty much guarantee the GOP loses ground in the Senate, and I don’t see where the GOP is going to make up the necessary house seats given that they are sure to relose the gains in Florida, New York, and California from the 2020 election without Trump on the ballot.
My prediction for 2022- Democrats pick up 3 seats in the Senate, 10 seats in the House. The filibuster is ended, 2 new states are added before 2024, and the Court becomes 13.
Keeping in mind….
https://www.pantagraph.com/news/at-summit-obama-gets-friendly-with-anti-american-leader-hugo-chavez/article_a61c0718-b017-506d-8918-3f848fd5bdf6.html
…which is only part of a general pattern:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/07/jimmy-carter-gets-it-wrong-on-venezuela-again/
If the Venezuelan template is correct, and it is terrifying to contemplate, the only solution might be intervention by the US Military…which is why “Biden” is intent (as was “his” master before him) on emasculating the Armed Forces as fast as possible.
Which “solution” has problems of its own, certainly…
The states that try to rein in the mail in vote fraud will have the effort injuncted by the district courts and the D.C. appeals court will sit on the issue until the election has passed by.
Yancey Ward:
If I’m remembering correctly, in cases like that the issue can go before SCOTUS which can lift the injunction if they want to do so. I think that was done in expedited fashion for some other injunctions by Hawaii judges and the like.
The Supreme Court is intimidated already and Roberts is useless. I have not given up on the 2022 election for the House. The Senate will be tougher and probably not salvageable.
Pinochet saved Chile and they are already sliding back into Socialism.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” Winston S. Churchill
I reblogged your excellent (and terrifying) post at https://conservablog.com/posts/index.php/2021/04/17/court-packing-part-ii-venezuela-is-the-template-the-new-neo/
Thanks for your penetrating analysis.
Unless something fundamental changes in the hearts of a lot of quiet, subdued folks in the electorate, I see nothing but trouble. Your analysis here is quite correct, depressing as it is.
America has been tottering for quite some time. Now, it’s teetering.
John Galt:
Thanks.
One of the reasons that Trump won in 2016 was the Supreme Court. Many people that are politically ambivalent voted for Trump to fill Scalia’s seat. They didn’t want the status quo upset. With Trump putting 3 on the court some people probably did not feel that sense of dread or concern.
If the Republicans are smart they will push this issue in the Senate Races in 2022 and 2024. Ambivalent voters would be more likely to vote for them if they state loudly and forcefully their opposition to packing the court. But then they are the Stupid Party.
I am excepting Marjorie Taylor Green. That woman is really scaring the Democrats. More than Jim Jordan. Maybe we should call her Notorious MTG. That would make the Progressives agitated taking a tag line from one of their icons who opposed packing the court.
They may back off “for now”. But they will never ever stop trying. They are currently only one more manufactured crisis away from ceasing permanent total power.
I (personally) am not sanguine about the future of this country. The slide towards a complete loss of constitutional liberties is too pronounced. It would require a major event or the emergence of a brilliant leader to reverse the trend.
Something that has gone unmentioned here, though I believe of noteworthy importance, is that part of the groundwork that was laid prior to the bulk of the assault on the legalistic/political fronts that have happened in Veni, is that the citizenry (other than the chavista-supporting gangs) was disarmed.
I would take that as a cautionary bit of history.
I share Neo’s rather pessimistic view of America’s future, but remain hopeful that some sort of Deus ex machina can intervene. Perhaps Russia will go ahead and move into Ukraine, or China will decide now is their best opportunity to “take back” Taiwan. Or there’s always the chance Iran or North Korea will decide now is a good time to settle old scores. In any case, domestic American politics will be put on the back burner while our external threats are dealt with, and the Pentagon will remember that their role is defending America, not promoting more four-stars and transgender officers. If none of those black swan events come to pass, I don’t hold out much hope for the Republicans showing a unified and spirited defense to prevent the Democrat slide toward a repeat of what happened in Venezuela.
SCOTUS is and has long been the ultimate legislative body of the federal government.
It has voted in favor of pro-black discrimination (see Sandra Day O’Conner) and it has invented rights, sometimes seen as penumbras and emanations, such as the right to privacy, which has led to all forms of accepted sexual conduct except, for the moment, bestiality. It has ruled in Roe v. Wade that it is permissible to murder unborn Americans, the death toll now exceeding 60 million since 1973.
John Marshall, the first Chief Justice, in Marbury v. Madison, declared the supremacy of SCOTUS over the Congress in 1803, and unfortunately his declaration went unchallenged by the Congress when that was clearly an option in the young USA, peopled by a healthy, vigorous group of educated people (as opposed to today’s brainwashed, uneducated).
Now we live with a monster “Court” of unelected Justices who rule for life.
Read “A Country I Do Not Recognize” (2005), edited by Robert Bork, whose name has become a verb, thanks to Biden and the Democrat- controlled Senate, for more on this topic.
Civil War is our last best bet, and it isn’t a good bet.
1. The ramifications are horrible, both internally and for China and Russia positions in the world.
2. I doubt many state legislatures would have the will to declare independence.
3. This is what the purging of the military is all about. They want to make sure the main tool violence is under their control.
I am past seeing realistic good options.
What really allowed the destruction of freedom in Venezuela was that the people were disarmed in 2012, We can’t allow that disarming of the people to happen in the US.
The only way forward is succession and that will only work if the state in question creates its own currency. Start talking currency changes and you will see a reaction – guaranteed. However I think most states are so fat on the federal teat that they would rather be slaves than have to pay their own bills. Cya!
Those who complain “the GOP (is) an impotent loser” or “the GOP is too gutless” indict themselves. They are the GOP.