Our Dim, Cretinous Overlords

To: Senator Smith
From: Mitch Berg, Unaborted Human
Re: From the Deep Thoughts of Tina Smith Files

Senator,

I have long since learned that your ignorance is a barrel with no bottom. Nothing surprises me.

This? Not even close:

The Supreme Court is *supposed to be* beholden to the American people and the Constitution – but they’ve gone rogue, constantly proving that they’d rather do the bidding of the far-right, dark money groups that put them on the bench.

The constitutional remedy? Expand the Court. pic.twitter.com/hWQvwVXmwW
— Tina Smith (@SenTinaSmith) May 16, 2023

No.

My God. No.

The SCOTUS is not “beholden to the people”. That’s the House. The Senate was intended to be beholden to the States (one of our nation’s greatest mistakes was changing that).

The SCOTUS responds only to the Constitution. When it doesn’t, awful things happen.

The thought that you are in the “deliberative” chamber is frankly an abomination.

That is all.

Posted

May 17, 2023

Democrat Party, SCOTUS

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

15 responses to “Our Dim, Cretinous Overlords”

Vlad the Impaler

May 17, 2023

The only thing keeping them from adding 3 more judges tomorrow is Joe Manchin.

They’ll do it eventually.
jdm

May 17, 2023

It is my understanding that the idea of being deliberative or deliberating over issues before making rash, emotional decisions is, in fact, white supremacy.

The election of Senators by state legislatures turned out to not be so great as the Founders envisioned. Disputes among state legislators over Senate elections resulted in numerous deadlocks, leaving some Senate seats vacant for long periods of time.

I don’t want to forget to mention that William Randolph Hearst, the George Soros of his time, played a role as an advocate for change.

Some states had already made the change themselves for direct election of senators (this seems like the perfect solution as per the 10th Amendment), but “progressives” (Republican progressives, but progressives nonetheless) were determined to make everyone change. And so we have the 17th Amendment.
SmithStCrx

May 17, 2023

The entire process and structure of the SCOTUS is specifically designed to insulate the Justices from public pressure and being “beholden to the people.”
Step 1) Be nominated by the POTUS, a position that is NOT directly elected by the people.
Step 2) Be confirmed by the Senate, which, again, were not originally elected by the people.
Heck, why even have a judiciary at all when you can just have elected bodies make all decisions? That would be Democracy, right?
Even when we have elected judges, the separation between judiciary and legislative and executive branches of government is designed to stifle the passions of the people and protect us from a mob mentality.
Besides, if there is such widespread, overwhelming consensus when it comes an issue and SCOTUS is standing in the way, there is a political solution to that. Judges can be Impeached by the House and Removed by a Supermajority of the Senate. And while if Clarence Thomas was Impeached by the House I have no doubt that every Democrat Senator would vote to remove him (with the possible exceptions of Jon Tester (MT) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) who both face re-election next year in Red States and have a high likelihood of losing their position), I doubt that if Katanji Brown Jackson was Impeached there would be more than about 10 votes to remove her.
I’d also argue that when the Court bows to outside pressure, real or perceived, that’s when we get terrible decisions that need to be overturned later.

As to the specific accusations about in Senator Tina Smith’s tweet, I’d love to actually hear the details, specifics required. Complaining about Roe vs Wade isn’t enough. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought it was a terrible Ruling. Harlan Crowe? Again, nothing burger. He’s had NO business before the Court. Trips, including overseas? Teaching jobs and speaking engagements include transportation and are done by “both sides” of the Justices. Slogans are easy. She knows she won’t be challenged about her allegations, and the sheer quantity of the allegations serve to prove the veracity of the allegations to her target audience. She’s playing to the Democrat Base and trying to gin up support for the 2024 Elections.

The best case against a current Justice for an ethical violation I know about is actually against Justice Sotomayor. The vast bulk of her outside income (and probably total income) comes from her book deals with Penguin Random House. Penguin Random House has had several Petitions and Cases come before SCOTUS during Sotomayor’s tenure. Sotomayor has NEVER recused herself from those proceedings, despite the fact that Justice Stephen Breyer did recuse himself multiple times, and Breyer had made much less money from Penguin Random House than Sotomayor. Despite that pattern of questionable ethics, I don’t think that the GOP should Impeach Sotomayor at the first instance of a GOP Supermajority. If the Democrats start doing so, or if they Pack the Court, though, then the gloves need to come off. Unfortunately, if the Democrats pack the Court like they keep threatening to, I don’t think the Country survives long enough for that to happen. You’ll see a wave of Red States seceding.
Maga Mammuthus Primigenesis

May 17, 2023

The constitution gives the federal government no power at all over marriage.
If the 14th amendment can be used to force every American to recognize same sex marriages, what can’t it do.
If we get a solid Democrat majority on the court, we will find out, and very quickly.
John “Bigman” Jones

May 17, 2023

Expanding the court might be okay, if they also expand the House.

When the nation was formed, the each member of the House represented about 50,000 people. If that were true today, the House would need about 7,000 members. Move Congress to meet someplace more convenient, maybe take over Morrison Stadium at Creighton University, which is not far from the geographical center of the Lower 48. That’s fair, right? Everybody inconvenienced equally?

Think of the opportunities for graft. Instead of all the bigshots bribing the same 435 people to influence legislation (which drives up the cost of owning a Representative), everybody could afford one. True, one vote out of 7,000 wouldn’t mean much, but maybe then Betty McCollum would return my calls? Worth a try.

The best part is the opportunity for gridlock. Democrats would all vote in lockstep, of course, but Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Klansmen, Marijuana Party, and all the other fringe groups might finally be able to send their own representatives to push their own agendas and disrupt the workings of the entire body.
Maga Mammuthus Primigenesis

May 17, 2023

Free speech is being attacked by the dems on at least two fronts: via 14th amendment based federal civil rights law, and civil lawsuits.
“That story you wrote about people like me being criminals and welfare cheats makes it harder for people like to find a job or get government aid.”
“That story you wrote inspired the murder of my son.”
Emery

May 17, 2023

In 1869, the number of SCOTUS judges was increased from 7 to 9 to reflect the increased number of Federal District courts, which also went from 7 to 9. Today, we have 13 district courts.
TKS

May 17, 2023

Anyone suggesting the court should be expanded is also pissed that Trump got to name replacement justices. Funny how no one advocated for it to be expanded when he was in office.
SmithStCrx

May 17, 2023

Emery,
The flaw in your logic is that the stated reason to expand the Court has nothing to do with the number of Circuits.
The Democrats claim they need to expand the Court because of Partisanship by the GOP nominated judges.
Run that through Berg’s Law of Liberal Projection.
The Democrats want to expand the Court because it’s not being liberally partisan. Instead those dirty conservative judges are ruling based on the text of the Constitution.
John “Bigman” Jones

May 17, 2023

The Emery Collective cut-and-pasted a factoid without context. This is my shocked face. And some cutting-and-pasting of my own, to add context to balance their ignorance.

By the start of the Civil War, the number of Supreme Court justices had increased to nine in order to cover additional circuit courts in the expanding American West. But Abraham Lincoln, upset over the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott and wanting to cement an anti-slavery majority on the Court, added a 10th justice in 1863

After the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination, Congress clashed with Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, who was rapidly undoing the “Radical Republicans’” plan for Reconstruction. To limit Johnson’s power, Congress passed legislation in 1866 that cut the number of Supreme Court justices back to seven, all but assuring that Johnson wouldn’t have the opportunity to fill a vacant seat.

The last time Congress changed the number of Supreme Court justices was in 1869, again to meet a political end. Ulysses S. Grant was elected president in 1868 with the backing of the congressional Republicans who had hated Johnson. As a gift to Grant, Congress increased the number of justices from seven back to nine, and Grant gamely used those picks.

The Supreme Court had just ruled that paper money was unconstitutional, which would have “wreaked havoc” with the U.S. Treasury, says Marcus. But Grant and Congress quickly confirmed two new justices who reversed the Court’s decision in the earlier case, saving the Republicans from having to undo the nation’s entire system of legal tender. Not that it mattered – the system suffered a series of bank panics in the late 1800’s before crashing in 1907. Kicking the can down the road was politically expedient but Constitutionally deficient and everybody knew it.

The whole problem started with the Supreme Court arrogating to itself the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803. Playing games with the makeup of the court to achieve a political goal not attainable through legislation, is wrong when either side does it.
kinlaw

May 17, 2023

Then if they want to up the number of scotus justices, let each party pick one or two.

Fair? Nah brah, the left in this country is in a huge panic. They know the Durham report has hurt, they have three embiciles holding seats: gropey joe, feinstein, and the guy with a second head growing out of his neck. They have no one on deck for the next prez race. They know the crap they pulled in 2020 will not fly again, and the country is going down the toilet. Unless you ask the lamestream mediots, and trust in the media is in the single digits. Americans know the dhimmis are killing the country. Now they are aiming to close some power plants. Take the bus peasant. Yeah, the future is bleak for the commies, which is what I will call them from now on. Their only hope ever was the supremes, and now the adults are in charge over there.
bosshoss429

May 17, 2023

If only we had some people that could ask Smitty in a public forum, like TV, social media and print, why she wants to add justices to the court and to what end, then holding her feet to the fire until she answers, not letting her dodge the question. A bonus would be to call her out as the lying, gutter dwelling hypocrite that she is. We could call them “investigative reporters” or something like that.
Vlad the Impaler

May 17, 2023

Personally, IDGAF how many scumbags the degenerates stuff into SCOTUS.

It’s irrelevant to the future of Weimerica. The die is cast.
Vlad the Impaler

May 17, 2023

What Merg, and his noe-con friends refuse to accept is that even if the destruction of our Western, White, Christian culture wasn’t enough to push this country over the edge, the collapse of federal fiat currency will.

How long do you notices tho k the fed can continue to print fiat currency, completely disassociated from any solid benchmark, before it collapses?

Do you nitwits even history?
Vlad the Impaler

May 18, 2023

rAT squeaked: ”
In 1869, the number of SCOTUS judges was increased from 7 to 9 to reflect the increased number of Federal District courts, which also went from 7 to 9. Today, we have 13 district courts.”

Say rAT? There are 94 US district courts, not 13. Should we have 94, SCOTUS judges?

Lol…you’re such a fucking idiot.