In prepping for my last post, I found an article by Think Progress about the threatening letter to the Supreme Court from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
Five Democratic senators just declared all-out war on the Supreme Court
It’s the same bullshit opinion other Left-leaning sites have written about the topic.
What stood out to me was a part of the last paragraph.
In other words, Republicans may come to find that by seizing control of the judiciary through constitutional hardball, they did so much damage to their prize that it is no longer worth having. The Whitehouse brief is an early warning sign that Democratic elected officials are, at the very least, ambivalent about whether they should obey courts that are increasingly seen as illegitimate. If those courts push too hard, that ambivalence could harden into something that will do permanent damage to judicial power.
This is the next stage for the Democrat Party, especially if Trump gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
They will no longer obey the courts in any fashion. They will simply ignore any ruling against them and will flagrantly violate the law using the defense that the courts have no authority because Orange Man Bad.
So what happens when the Democrats openly stop obeying the law?
They might have to be reminded that at the end of the day “power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” It is obedience to the courts that stops it from going that far.
In the last few days, the media has gone nuts that Trump suggested that an abuse of the law by the Democrats to impeach him could spark a civil war.
If the Democrats decide that the law no longer matters and they won’t obey the courts, they will just continue to go full-steam ahead doing what they want, Trump’s Tweet isn’t wrong.
Not the first time the Dems have ignored the courts. Andy Jackson and the Trail of Tears; Numerous Southern sherifs and governors preventing integration of schools after Brown vs Board of Education.
Yup. The Dems have at least been pretending to go along with following the law. If they wholesale say “screw it” as an entire party, including all of the mainstreamers and leadership, then a whole lot of folks will say “screw it” as well. Once again the Leftys think their new special rules will only apply to them.
“After the first felony the rest are free.”
The whole piece is worth reading. One snippet explains why two justices are not legitimate members:
“Both men were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote, and were confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country.”
Another gives a plain-language translation of the threat issued by those five Senators:
“the thrust of the brief is that the Supreme Court is dominated by political hacks selected by the Federalist Society, and promoted by the National Rifle Association — and that if those hacks don’t watch out, the American people are going to rebel against them.
“… confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country.”
They’re trotting out that line again. Maybe that Senate majority represents less than half the country, maybe not, but it does represent more than half of the States, and it was set up that way intentionally.
“… if those hacks don’t watch out, the American people are going to rebel against them.”
At that point, it won’t be the American People who are rebelling. See my comment below about the social contract. The rebels will be the Leftists trying to dissolve the social contract, in part by defying the Supreme Court. The American People will be thrust into the unfortunate role of trying to preserve the Republic, pretty much the exact opposite of rebellion.
My thoughts (which happen to echo and expand on what Brian P. said):
It’s all about the “social contract”, the system of rules and laws that we all agree to as part of this civil society we call America. Among those rules are this: we (the People) agree to let the government handle civil and criminal complaints and punishments instead of doing it ourselves. For their part, the government’s judicial branch agrees to be an unbiased, neutral arbiter, making decisions based on evidence and facts, with the rules intentionally weighed in favor of defendants (“innocent until proven guilty”), and the legislative and executive branches agree to abide by the judiciary’s findings and decisions.
This is the American view of justice and rule of law as enshrined in our social contract, which we call the Constitution.
And it is one of many ways the social contract helps preserve peace among both parties, the citizens and the government. But here’s the kicker: The agreement goes two ways.
The Leftists are signalling that they don’t intend to abide by that agreement, but they expect us to continue holding up our end.
Sorry, Skippy. That’s not how this works. You break the deal, and it’s broken. Period. Full stop. If you refuse the requirement to be the neutral, fact-driven arbiter in civil and criminal complaints, then the citizens of America will be released from the requirement to let the government handle those complaints.
And they will be 100% within their natural, God-given rights to start “handling it themselves”. And a plurality will want to start with Constitution-trampling, social-contract-breaking Leftists.
The Left claims to be against vigilantism and “popular justice”. But they seem to be doing everything they can to ensure that’s exactly what happens. (As an aside, I question the efficacy of Universities of Law in this country, given how many legislators are lawyers by trade, yet completely fail to grasp this foundational underpinning of contract law.)
What’s truly mind-boggling, however, is that they truly believe they will be immune, or at least insulated and protected, from the societal effects.
Can’t write much now, going to buy more ammo