(Sounding: noun, the act of measuring the depths or the heights)
Packing the Courts
Following the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, the Democrats and liberals are suggesting that Congress add two seats to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two can play this game. President Trump could encourage all federal judges, at both trial and appellate levels, over a certain age to resign or, if eligible for “senior status” (roughly, on the bench for 15 years and over age 65), to assume senior status — to take effect on the date that their successor is confirmed. This would enable the President to replace older judges with younger ones. This would not be packing “the Court” but packing all the federal courts.
He could encourage judges in stages, for example, by age (starting with age 75, and moving to age 70) or by geography (starting with certain courts). And he could publicize his plan as leverage to obtain some other big goal, such as money for a border wall, or repeal of Obamacare.
The Drumbeat for Popular Vote
The campaign for our election results to reflect the popular vote (and this means a simple majority) has now expanded from an attack on the Electoral College, as constituted, by Article II, section 1, of the Constitution, to that of the Senate, as constituted by Article I, section 3, of the Constitution.
Exhibit 1: A front page article in the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2018, arguing that “If they win all three uncalled races, Republicans will end up with 54 seats and only 48% of the votes.” How did the Post calculate the “48% of the votes”? “Population share calculated by crediting half of each state’s population to each senator, by party.”
Exhibit 2: Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2018: Rick Noack, “How to Explain to Someone Living Abroad that Democrats Can Have Over 10 Million More Senate Votes and Still Lose.”
Exhibit 3: New York Times, Nov. 8, 2018: Paul Krugman, “Real America Versus Senate America.”
On these pages, Caleb Howe has declared the “Senate Popular Vote” to be “fake news.”
The Democrats believe they have the unfettered right to win. If they don’t win, they steal. See the litany of elections stolen by Democrats provided on these pages by Dov Fischer. It’s actually easier to change the rules rather than steal an election since changing rules doesn’t put you in legal jeopardy. Let me remind you of how Massachusetts changed its rules on making appointments to fill vacancies in the Senate twice, in 2004 and 2009. (Bob Salsberg, “Change in Senate Vacancy Law Led to Mass. Elections,” Jan. 20, 2013.)
Let’s face it. The Democrats, the liberals, the media don’t really like living under the Constitution. Is there any provision of the Constitution that does not grate them?
I have a different take than the wild-eyed, extremist Democrats and their academic and media lackeys. Virtually anything wrong with this country is due to the Democrats. Jeffrey Lord on these pages has recounted the Democratic Party’s (the Slave Party’s) history of support of slavery, history of support for 100 years of Jim Crow segregation, and the history of their votes against Civil Rights legislation. Let me add one example. Gerrymandering began with the Democrats in 1812. The term gerrymander reflects the election redistricting done by Massachusetts (ah, yes, Massachusetts) Governor Elbridge Gerry, a “Democratic-Republican.” One of the districts looked like a salamander. The Democrats had 50 years to get good at gerrymandering before the Republican Party even made its debut.
Before she lost re-election as a U.S. Senator from North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp explained that a principal reason she voted against the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was because her mother had been the victim, as a teenager, of a sexual assault. (Kyle Swenson, “Heidi Heitkamp Talks to North Dakotans About Her No Vote on Kavanaugh,” Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2018.)
In the confirmation hearings of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee have, over and over again, asked the nominees if they can be empathetic to the “little guys” that appear before them. They ask if they can put aside their lives of privilege, such as attending elite schools, to render justice. In the case of Heidi Heitkamp we have a person who could not put aside her personal life story to vote in the best interests of the United States. She could not make a rational examination, as Senator Susan Collins did, of the allegations of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh. She was a sucker for unsubstantiated claims made by Dr. Ford, the same type of unsubstantiated claims made in connection with the University of Virginia fraternity and the Duke Lacrosse team.
How many women, who themselves had been victims of sexual assault or whose family members or friends had been, voted to re-elect that woman-killer at Chappaquiddick, that “lion” of the Senate, Ted Kennedy. I’ll give you the appalling numbers:
1970: 1.2 million (men and women)
1976 primary: 534,000 (men and women)
1976: 1.7 million (men and women)
1982: 1.2 million (men and women)
1988: 1.7 million (men and women)
1994 primary: 392,000 (men and women)
1994: 1.2 million (men and women)
2000 primary: 237,000 (men and women)
2000: 1.9 million (men and women)
2006: 1.5 million (men and women)
Heidi Heitkamp is a woman who practiced law and served as Attorney General of her state. We Americans are forewarned that she should never be made a judge.
Elizabeth Warren became a member of the faculty of Harvard Law School in 1995. She was a Republican until 1996.
Senator Warren, did you vote for Ted Kennedy in 2000 or 2006?
If she answers yes, she’s not a supporter of women. If she answers no, she’s not a Democrat.
Oh, she might try to wriggle out of the question by saying she never voted in 2000 or 2006, or she never voted for the office of U.S. Senator, or she can’t remember how she voted, or she sometimes voted for Kennedy and sometimes not.
Sen. Heitkamp meets with Judge Garland (April 7, 2016) (Senate Democrats/Flickr-Creative Commons)